Options
This is why I shoot RAW (img)
Daniel Chui
Registered Users Posts: 65 Big grins
"Shoot raw because memory is cheap, but memories are priceless".
Original exposure:
Final draft, including some slight toning:
The thing that got me thinking about this is that I will be assisting a wedding photographer who prefers if I shoot entirely JPEG. I am trying to tell him that if I shoot RAW, I can take better photos and better represent her services, but I'm not sure how I can convince her.
Many people are black and white about the issue... but hopefully examples like this can help explain why RAW is at times necessary.
EDITED:
Here's some stuff I added after reading som replies.
This is an extreme example of underexposure. The message of this post was never meant to say: go ahead and take crappy images, RAW will save you. Rather, it is meant to show that RAW gives you some room to breathe on the occasion that you fail to get the right exposure.
In this photo, some background info may be necessary. I had set the camera on Av mode. Ideally, I would have metered immediately and used manual, but the moment was passing before my eyes so I had to rely upon my camera. This is the result.
I just wanted to clear things up here. Nowhere do I claim that I did a good job on this image. My main point was that RAW gives you some room for error, if there is to be any error. In an ideal world, I would get exposure right every time. And indeed, this is the purpose of practice and learning from others: how to get the exposure right every time, like back in the days of film. But till I get to that level, I will shoot with RAW and still try and get exposure right. And when I'm wrong, I'll have some room to breathe.
In addition, I realize now that my main argument for RAW could have been articulated better. I've decided not to make this an issue with the photographer I'm working with... it may be an opportunity to challenge myself to getting the exposure and white balance perfect straight of the camera.
- Chui
Original exposure:
Final draft, including some slight toning:
The thing that got me thinking about this is that I will be assisting a wedding photographer who prefers if I shoot entirely JPEG. I am trying to tell him that if I shoot RAW, I can take better photos and better represent her services, but I'm not sure how I can convince her.
Many people are black and white about the issue... but hopefully examples like this can help explain why RAW is at times necessary.
EDITED:
Here's some stuff I added after reading som replies.
This is an extreme example of underexposure. The message of this post was never meant to say: go ahead and take crappy images, RAW will save you. Rather, it is meant to show that RAW gives you some room to breathe on the occasion that you fail to get the right exposure.
In this photo, some background info may be necessary. I had set the camera on Av mode. Ideally, I would have metered immediately and used manual, but the moment was passing before my eyes so I had to rely upon my camera. This is the result.
I just wanted to clear things up here. Nowhere do I claim that I did a good job on this image. My main point was that RAW gives you some room for error, if there is to be any error. In an ideal world, I would get exposure right every time. And indeed, this is the purpose of practice and learning from others: how to get the exposure right every time, like back in the days of film. But till I get to that level, I will shoot with RAW and still try and get exposure right. And when I'm wrong, I'll have some room to breathe.
In addition, I realize now that my main argument for RAW could have been articulated better. I've decided not to make this an issue with the photographer I'm working with... it may be an opportunity to challenge myself to getting the exposure and white balance perfect straight of the camera.
- Chui
0
Comments
Just show her some of your work...I think that will convince her
I have been trying to work on nailing the exposure so not to tweek too much in raw
My problem is color just can't seem to get right
Good shot good example
Thanks
Fred
http://www.facebook.com/Riverbendphotos
Forgive me if I'm being too simplistic here, but maybe the photographer is not familiar with the conversion process????
If you shoot RAW does your camera automatically save a JPG too? If so maybe you can shoot RAW and just give him/her the JPG? Would that work?
Does shooting RAW slow down your camera?
Have fun at the wedding, and I hope you can share some of your photos with us here.
http://www.twitter.com/deegolden
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
If you have control of the light - amount and color - and can do good exposures - jpgs will be much faster and easier, won't they?? Most wedding shooters should have control of the light and understand exposure with their rigs.
The first image in this thread was underexposed - that is, certainly, easier to fix in RAW, but if shot correctly, I suspect the correctly shot jpg would be as good as, or better than the second corrected RAW image. Don't get me wrong - I shoot most of my stuff in RAW - I have lots of time and am not being paid for my shooting or processing. But if I was being paid to shoot weddings, jpgs would be much faster and simpler IF I have complete and total control of the lighting.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Wow, talk about seeing things in black and white. I'm shooting a shifter kart race on Saturday. I'm expecting 1000 to 1200 shots. Should I shoot in RAW? If so, why? Why waste time converting that many images to JPG. I'm not going to go every single one of them, asking myself if the exposure is right, if the white balance is right, if the contrast is fine. I'm going to set the camera up to get the shot right when I take the photo in the first place.
The following weekend is a two-day regional race. I'm expecting to take 2,000 - 2,500 photos. Shoot RAW for that? No freakin' way. Those photos need to be sorted, tagged, ranked, and uploaded FAST if I am going to get any sales. And RAW does nothing to help me in this type of photography.
That's a reason to shoot JPG.
Pathfinder is right. If you have controlled lighting, or unchanging lighting, and know how to user your camera, there's nothing wrong with shooting JPG.
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
If it were my choice ...
I really don't think the photographer needs a reason to want jpeg. It's their gig. There's absolutely nothing wrong with stating your case. Your arguments aren't irrational. But in the end, if the photographer still wants jpeg, I think her answer should be respected.
Brad
www.digismile.ca
I shoot exclusively in RAW. Its easy for me because I'm retired and I have no deadlines to meet. I can go out and shoot 1000 images and then lay back and take a week to process them. I have no deadlines to meet and I will stilll get my pension checks no matter what happens.
I'm still very careful when I shoot because I know that if I get the exposure and WB nailed on the shots I can breeze through my post work. If I was a pro shooting weddings I would probably be forced to shoot jpgs because I would need a streamlined workflow to meet my work demands.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
Not to beat this to death, but I think you need to pay attention to what you said above. (And in particular, the argument you are trying to make to the person who might hire you -- I get to that later.) You showed a photo that was helped by RAW, and drew the conclusion that RAW lets you take better photos. That's not really true.
The photo you gave as an example was a photo taken wrong. Very wrong, actually. RAW let you save the photo. It did not let you take a better photo. RAW will not make you a better photographer, but it might save your butt when you do something wrong. That is an important difference.
The key is to get things right from the start. To my eye, your corrected image was definitely better than what you started with. But it still looked "wrong" to me. Maybe its just an artifact of a low resolution image for web posting.
The May/June issue of Digital Photo Pro has this in the editor's note: " 'Fix it in Photoshop' has become a mantra of the digital age. As the editor of Digital Photo Pro, I get to talk to many of the very best professional pohtographers in the world. One thing all of them have in common is that I've never heard any of them utter those words". What he's getting at is Photoshop is a great tool for enhancing a photo. But "fixing" photos mean something was done wrong from the start.
If you want to convince that professional photographer that you should shoot RAW, then show a fine image that was made even better because you shot RAW. Don't show a bad image that you somewhat salvaged. What you don't want to say is "see, when I screw up on your gig I can fix it...". Sends the wrong message to a potential employer.
I will shoot RAW for certain types of photography myself, but its not often I do so. I'm not anti-RAW, but I do think it is way over-hyped, and in particular I do not agree with the "only RAW" mantra. There's a place for everything.
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
- Chui
James.
http://www.jamesjweg.com
Daniel,
I understand where you are coming from. Shooting using RAW should never make the photographer feel he/she doesn't need to get the exposure right. But, as you and your pic point out, it does give you some latitude for those "problem" type shots. Your severely backlit shot falls into that category. But, I'd take your backlit pic in jpg and try to salvage in during post, rather than a wedding's worth of jpgs of what one might wind up with shooting white wedding dresses and white shirts black tuxes, with a flash
IMHO, if you have the time (a little longer in-cam processing time) and the memory, go for it
Steve
i know plenty of jpeggers - for this very reason. event shooters, mostly. and guess what - they nail the exposures at shoot - as i'm sure you do, too : D
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
I don't shoot in RAW just in case the exposure is wrong. I did notice myself improving as a photographer though when I would not do any processing in RAW and imported directly into PS untouched. I do want the 16 bits there and the true color captured that I can adjust in anyway if wanted and then save that raw file to maybe play with later. However its for me and not a job.
I never experienced what you do during a job. Thank you for the input and allowing me to understand the other side. I apologize for wearing blinders.
what you need and she gets the JPEGs.
Just a thought.
Ian