Choosing NOT to shoot RAW (much) brands me as Lazy and intimidated.... (Page 2): He's not,we are. The OP only made one (initial) post here. We're keeping it going. :sm17:...

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Bill_de wrote:

Seems the OP is the one dragging this out.
.....
.....
---

He's not,we are. The OP only made one (initial) post here. We're keeping it going.

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

Bill_de wrote:

Seems the OP is the one dragging this out. I don't see any other reason to have created this thread.

Gee, somebody told me I'm lazy, my images suck, I should shoot Sony and am an idiot for sticking with Nikon. Who gives a rat's ass? Oh, wait, I forgot to broadcast it to the world, I might get some sympathy.

IMHO - look at my pictures tell me what you like, or don't like, and how you think I can improve them.

---

Good night, David....Good night, Chet....

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

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)

Got the same or worse chastising from the same guy ! - I continue to ignore him !!

.

PixelStan77 Loc: Vermont/Chicago

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)

It is not you. It is him. He likes to get under people skins. He is on my ignore list

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

Salo wrote:

I still shoot RAW+JPEG, but I must admit I no longer post-process the RAW files either except upon rare occasion. I usually just discard them these days. Even JPEGs can still be somewhat tweaked with common editing tools to make them appear more pleasing if needed or desired, but I fully agree with the OP that it's just a matter of personal choice. One should always have the freedom of doing whatever one wishes with their own photography. There is no unwritten rule against not post-processing.

I depend on the Lightroom DAM to keep track of my images. Since everything has to go into the LR catalog, I just decided to shoot raw only since it's going into LR so I might as well use the raw. Doesn't cost me anything.

Even if I had a good jpg image from the camera I'd want it to go into LR. Raw just gives me more options for the future.

CO

Ignore Jim. He needs to get off his high horse. It's great that you're doing exactly what you want with it. Cameras have so many settings that can alter the .jpeg output from the camera. Canon has their Picture Styles. Nikon has their Picture Controls. With Picture Controls, you can even fine tune the Picture Controls.

There's also Active D-lighting that will alter the dynamic range of the .jpeg.

(Download)

User ID

`

I'm not intimidated, but I proudly
confess to lazy. Reeeeeally lazy !

I use "raw + jpeg" as a backup or
insurance plan, where conditions
call for that. Mostly I'll shoot jpeg
for myself, except in the trickiest
light [or dark]. I am very good at
what I do, and have never had to
use my "insurance" ... but that is
not reason to quit using back-up
when appropriate. Even in ideal
conditions, if I am responsible to
someone [other than myself] for
a successful result I always shoot
raw+jpeg, in case of a "disaster".

.

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

CO wrote:

Ignore Jim. He needs to get off his high horse. It's great that you're doing exactly what you want with it. Cameras have so many settings that can alter the .jpeg output from the camera. Canon has their Picture Styles. Nikon has their Picture Controls. With Picture Controls, you can even fine tune the Picture Controls.

There's also Active D-lighting that will alter the dynamic range of the .jpeg.

I am far too lazy to do all of that and I am intimidated by all of that automated stuff. That is the reason I like working with raw files - it is faster, easier, and simpler.

All of the picture styles with Canon cameras are available in the Canon image program, after you get back from the shoot. I prefer that to fiddling around with menus and dials when out taking photographs. Nothing lost, everything to gain.

Mike

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

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.

.

frankraney Loc: Clovis, Ca.

Longshadow wrote:

He's not,we are. The OP only made one (initial) post here. We're keeping it going.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

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)

While I'm a raw shooter 100% of the time I completely support your decision to shoot in any mode that provides you with the results you want. The person who insulted you and called you lazy for not shooting in raw is just as obnoxious and wrong headed as those who suggest raw shooters are lazy and use the raw format to only correct their poorly composed images.

BebuLamar

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)

You don't have to prove your point. You do what you want. The guy kinda accused you of being lazy but he didn't say so exactly.

mrjcall Loc: Woodfin, NC

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)

You might want to give my full comments in that I said if you are concerned about maximizing what your brain, your effort and your equipment can produce, you'll shoot in raw format. I also said that many do not want to go through that effort and are fine with jpegs and that is fine if that is what you want to do. I will reiterate that most who do not want to shoot raw simply are not willing to learn what its about and are not interested in the effort to learn post processing software because the process is intimidating. Full context my man. Me thinks you might just be protesting a bit too much....

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

BebuLamar wrote:

You don't have to prove your point. You do what you want. The guy kinda accused you of being lazy but he didn't say so exactly.

But it can be implied in a various ways, or not,
and either correctly inferred, or not.
It depends on the wordage.

jim quist Loc: Missouri

Some people even shoot their kids birthday parties in raw...