Raw: A crutch for incompetent photographers

[Damo77]

This is going to offend quite a few people, but I'm livid, and need to get it off my chest ...

This morning I met our (international) company's full-time photographer - a pleasant chap. He's been here taking thousands of photos for our 08/09 marketing. He's supplying me the Raws, which I will process ready for use in brochures etc.

The company has bought me Aperture, which I haven't used before, so he agreed to show me the basics of the program (I'm familiar with Raws, having used ACR quite a bit already).

To my horror, his "training" consisted largely of the use of the Recovery slider. According to him, his "style" of photography often involves over-exposure, and all it requires is maximum use of Recovery to salvage the detail.

No.

NO.

My friends, severe over-exposure is not a "style", it's incompetence. I'm on a tight turnaround with these images, I do NOT have the time to spend recovering the highlights on every second shot.

So here's my inflammatory statement of the week:

If you're not good enough to shoot jpeg, you're not good enough.

These are not fine-art or wedding photos. They're marketing shots, likely to be used no bigger than postcard size in various brochures and web pages. sRGB jpegs would be sufficient - nay, ideal. Instead, what do I have? The Recovery slider. Give me a &*%^ing break.

I feel better. Thanks for listening.

[René Damkot]

Whahahaha. I know that feeling ;)

[Jarrad]

Obviously you shoot only jpeg. I mean, you wouldn't be a hypocrite, would you?

If we're talking about a controlled lighting environment I'd have to agree that relying on the recovery slider is probably the wrong thing to do. Shooting candids and other things in available light where, perhaps the subject is back-lit and overexposure is necessary, well, I can forgive the use of the recovery slider.

Overexposure can be a style. It used to be quite popular and still is in commercial still life. Just because you don't appreciate it doesn't mean it's a sign of incompetence.

I hope this photographer was hired after viewing samples of his work. I assume it was deemed acceptable. This is how he gets his finished product.

The only thing I'm surprised about is the fact that he's allowing anyone other than himself or a professional retoucher process his raws.

:)

[xa-coupe]

You have an interesting spin on things. I think this incompetent photographer might use raw but using raw isn't the sign of an incompetent photographer and I don't think it's fair to insinuate it. Raw has so many uses other than recovery.. in fact, I would think that's it's least used feature.
Perhaps someone needs to to review this guy and move him on for someone that is decent.

[S.Horton]

Sounds like the guy's incompetent UNLESS he wants that 'fried' look on the shots.

[René Damkot]

Overexposure can be a style. It used to be quite popular and still is in commercial still life.

That's high key. Something quite different ;)

[Travisj]

If you're not good enough to shoot jpeg, you're not good enough.

Guess you could say the same thing about PS. If you can't get it right in the camera the first time and all......:rolleyes:

[BillyR]

RAW is just another tool. It can be used to good effect, overused or underused. According to this amateur, a blanket statement such as "If you're not good enough to shoot jpeg, you're not good enough." may make the OP feel better, but is objective nonsense.

[Mark1]

I would be very tempted to let it known up the chain that the level of quality in the images is the main hold up in production, and you may not make the deadline (weather you mean it to not). Let them see a few bad examples.

Over exposure is NOT a style. Even if it were a style, there is no point in using it, if you have to edit out your style from every image.

Incompetence on his part, Sure. But I'm thinking he is more of an uneducated photographer that happened in to the job, rather than earned it.

[Victoria Bampton]

Going out and shooting jpegs is like going out and shooting slide film. Raw is like negatives - it has extra latitude. Whether photographers use that as an excuse to be sloppy... well, the same photographers were probably just as sloppy with their negatives, but the lab always sorted that out for them. That hasn't changed one bit - the only thing that's changed is that we get to see the originals in all their awfulness now, rather than seeing the nicely finished results.

Whilst I'd agree that you should,in theory, nail the exposure every time, it's not always possible, particularly in fast moving situations. Some photographers do get sloppy because they know they can rescue it later, and the majority of photography training these days misses out on the technicalities, which is a real shame, but they hired him. I'd agree with Jarrad, I'm surprised he's happy to hand those files over as-is, but I guess that's the arrangement that's been made, particularly if the company have bought you Aperture with a view to you doing the post-processing. I'll say one thing though - I don't know a single pro photographer who nails it every time.

[ShotByTom]

Guess you could say the same thing about PS. If you can't get it right in the camera the first time and all......:rolleyes:


Good point...especially given the OP's signature!

"Not a photographer, just a humble photoshop user."

[mattograph]

This is going to offend quite a few people, but I'm livid, and need to get it off my chest ...



I feel better. Thanks for listening.


I love the dichotomy here.

I'm going to punch you in the nose........ thanks for standing still!


I shoot in RAW, and process in Zoombrowser, which has no recovery slider. So, I have compounded my incompetence by not even using the right program!

[Mike McCusker]

Going out and shooting jpegs is like going out and shooting slide film. Raw is like negatives - it has extra latitude. Whether photographers use that as an excuse to be sloppy... well, the same photographers were probably just as sloppy with their negatives, but the lab always sorted that out for them. That hasn't changed one bit - the only thing that's changed is that we get to see the originals in all their awfulness now, rather than seeing the nicely finished results.

Whilst I'd agree that you should,in theory, nail the exposure every time, it's not always possible, particularly in fast moving situations. Some photographers do get sloppy because they know they can rescue it later, and the majority of photography training these days misses out on the technicalities, which is a real shame, but they hired him. I'd agree with Jarrad, I'm surprised he's happy to hand those files over as-is, but I guess that's the arrangement that's been made, particularly if the company have bought you Aperture with a view to you doing the post-processing. I'll say one thing though - I don't know a single pro photographer who nails it every time.

Amen, all you have to do is look at my deleted files..:oops:

[elses_pels]

don't be so harsh. i am a bad photographer , amateur, and make a lot of use of the recovery slider in lighroom. by doing so I learn every time. his mistake is to let others "fix" his shot. I agree with victoria , the lab used to fix all my pictures , now I have to take t in the chin and learn ...

[Flagpole]

overexposure depends on the camera and individual situation. Given that many modern cameras allow you to salvage up to 2Ev digitally from raw in overexposure and only possibly 1Ev in underexposure then it makes more sense to overexpose and correct through raw converter than to underexpose. I could not be critical without seeing examples of the work.

[E-K]

Maybe they were just practicing some variant of ETTR :).

e-k

[mcmadkat]

Why are you telling us? You should be talking to the photographer! If he is such a pleasant chap then I'm sure he will fine with your observations.

IT IS YOU WHO IS THE LOOSER! Your fault for being incompetent and not correcting him when you had the chance.

You loose.

[mattograph]

Isn't everything better in the RAW?

[Dermit]

My thoughts, for better or worse.

I shoot and get paid to do so. I do weddings, family portraits, seniors, sports, theater. I've been shooting digital for about 6 years now. Shot film for 15 years before that. I only shoot as a side business, my main day job (not photography) pays too well to try and replace it with photography just yet.

My clients pay me pretty well, especially for weddings. I strive to make the highest quality image I possibly can with the equipment I have with every shot. My day job is in the semiconductor industry where I am an engineer who works in the designing process of the chips we produce so I understand a little about what happens electronically in the digital camera. I have extensively studied the whole photographic process and feel I understand most of the whole process.

I agree with Victoria, no one nails it every time. Try shooting theater sometime and see how many exposures you nail in-camera. Expecially something with a lot of movement like dance, ballet, etc. I do pretty well at it and probably only really nail half the shots exposure wise.

Now, here's my thoughts about this thread and the OPs concern. I agree that the quality of an image does not need to be absolutely over the top for some appications. Many images will never be seen other than as a 400x600 pixel image on a web page. So why would you shoot it with a 12 MP camera? So why don't you just turn it on jpg, set it to low resolution and fire away?

Let me ask you this... other than the over exposure and need to use recovery on every image what is the work like. After you use the recovery to dial in the exposure are the images any good?

I may be a lot like the photographer you are dealing with. When ever I go shoot for a client I absolutely strive for the best. If you know anything about how the data is captured in a digital camera and how it is non-linear you would know that most of the data is captured in the highlight area. If you divide the histogram into 5 equal parts the 1/5 section that represents the highlights contains half of all the data captured. If you expose an image and get not data in the top 1/5 then you only captured half the data, or less, than the camera/sensor is capable of capturing.

By exposing to the right, sometimes even over exposing, you are making sure you are capturing more data than if you weren't. Now you have to be careful and really know how far you can go and still be able to recover the data past the end of the histogram. It takes a lot of practice and it's walking a fine line sometimes. But you can only recover this data from a RAW file.

My guess is that the photographer you are dealing with is always 'on'. And I say that meaning he is always striving to capture the absolute best that hee can wit hwhat he has. Even though the final product might not use even close to what the image is capable of. And if he is like me it's hard to turn that off. So my guess is he either really knows what he is doing, or really does not and is just messing up unknowingly.

I belong to the PPA and my local chapter of it, the AzPPA so I know a lot of pros personally and on line. The latest polls show that 90% are shooting RAW. One friend of mine does not walk out the door to shoot a wedding for less than $4000 and has done one for as much as $30,000. He's had image on loan in traveling exhibitions at the international level. He's VERY good. He shoots in RAW. You think he's imcompetent? You think 90% of the pros shooting in RAW are incompetent? It's not about being good enough to shoot in jpg. It's about shooting smarter by capturing all the data your camera is capable of.

And for those of you who think RAW is only a crutch for when you 'miss' that's only part of the equation. What about the shots you nail but you want to tweak in PS to darken a green background and brighten the subject in the foreground? The exposure was right on, you nailed it. But you want to mess with tonalities in other areas. In 8 bit jpg there are only 256 shades of tome per color. In RAW or 16 bit there are 4096 tones per color. Now once you start sliding these tones around which file do you think is going to better with subtle gradients?

The difference between a good image and making it a great image is usually a lot of little things. All the little things can add up to become big things. And it starts in the camera. Of course you need to get it as good as you can in camera and take it from there. As good as it can be in camera means shooting in RAW. You shoot in jpg and you let the camera decide what to throw away because that is exactly what it does. Hope you didn't need/want what it tosses because it's gone forever.

[René Damkot]

Given that many modern cameras allow you to salvage up to 2Ev digitally from raw in overexposure and only possibly 1Ev in underexposure

And what camera's would that be? I've yet to see them.

[PhotosGuy]

and all it requires is maximum use of Recovery to salvage the detail. Without a sample image, it's tough to say. He may be shooting to retain some image info that would be otherwise lost. He might be trying to reduce noise in the shadow areas.
So, instead of ranting here, why not ask him why he shoots that way?

[mcmadkat]

Hey I can pull -4EV and +2EV no problem.

[Flagpole]

And what camera's would that be? I've yet to see them.

For one example read Nikon D3 review from Dpreview http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD3/page20.asp

Look at the 'RAW headroom' section and the images which use -2Ev dig comp.

Instead of having a dig at someone please read carefully what someone posts first. Remember we are talking here digital compensation which isn't equivalent to underexposing the image by 2 stops.

[René Damkot]

From that link: "Experience has told us that there is typically around 1 EV (one stop) of extra information available at the highlight end in RAW files and that a negative digital exposure compensation when converting such files can recover detail lost to over-exposure."

So, while the D3 can go further than that (surprisingly far I'd say), a lot of camera's can't (Fuji S5 can probably, Mk3 as well maybe).

I don't agree with the "only possibly 1Ev in underexposure" bit though. YMMV.

[CyberDyneSystems]

I just need to make it clear that there is NO CORRELATION between the person in the OP's story, and the use of RAW.

This threads title is clearly going to inflame, it was a regrettable choice that we may alter if need be.

But one persons malpractice is not and should not be an indictment of/on the use of RAW files.

[superdiver]

someone is just venting folks, no need to take them totally literally and serious...let him vent and he now feels better and seay what he feels like saying, not necesarily what he really means...lol

I have this conversation with my wife all the time. "let me say what I want and dont hold me to it, just let me vent!"

[-MasterChief-]

i used to shoot JPEG exclusively but now am a real believer in RAW. i dont use it coz im incompetent, i think of RAW as an insurance policy and to be able to extract the most from the image. but i do agree that you should at least get it right out of the camera.

[CyberDyneSystems]

... i dont use it coz im incompetent, i think of RAW as an insurance policy and to be able to extract the most from the image. .

And here in lies the reason that a thread title such as this is so inflammatory. The original post seems to draw a blanket statement about the use of RAW, and indictment that does not take into account why many chose to shoot RAW that has nothing do with a crutch or even to some just "insurance" and that is pure desire for the best.
Best optics, best cameras, why not best Image file?

No one says to a Pro "if you can't get that shot with a DRrebel and a 17-55mm, you shouldn't be shooting"
No one assumes that the pro with the 1D is a fool that needs that pricy camera as a crutch since he's incompetent with a 350D.

The same applies to RAW.

Again, just because the guy in the story was using RAW as a crutch (if indeed that is what he was doing) this is no reason to assume it's a bad thing to use the one file type that will give you the best results from your equipment.

[RandyMN]

Good point...especially given the OP's signature!

"Not a photographer, just a humble photoshop user."


That's funny as #$#%!!!

I like this argument from both sides, really!

[mattograph]

That's funny as #$#%!!!

I like this argument from both sides, really!

Spoken like a future moderator!

[Dermit]

I met Kevin Ames a couple years ago, a pro photographer. He told me about when Canon was coming out with their first DSLR, the D30, they gave him a pre-production copy and sent him to Africa to shoot with it so they could use his images to help promote the camera when it came out. He showed me the images, RAW, and then how they were processed at the time. Remember, this was probably 6 or 7 years ago. The images looked good. I was impressed. But. Then he showed me a new version of those images. A version of each that had been re-processed from the RAW file but with the latest software tools and they were even better. Quite a bit better. His point was that had he shot in jpg he would not have had the latitude to do as much to them as he was able to do with the RAW. As software gets better we can make better images, but it may require all the data that the RAW file contains. Are you willing to bet the future on the possible lack of potential of an image by shooting in jpg?

I understand the Mods concern about this thread turning into an argument about RAW vs Jpg because that has been done to death. And that the perception of the OP, and others, that the photographer in this story may be incompetent due to possibly being sloppy just because he knows he can get away with it since he's shooting in RAW. But there is a possibility that he is doing it on purpose for the sake of capturing more data and therefore creating the best image possible. It's called exposing to the right and is a very well known practice done all the time by very high end photographers.

..and good point about the OPs signature. Admits he is not a photographer but then posts to a photo forum about the competence of a specific pro photographer and makes general accusations about the competence of any photographer shooting in RAW. Not too smart. It would be like me trying to tell Picasso he was an idiot for using a specific type of brush or paint. (I know nothing about painting)

[Budley007]

."Safety net" would be a better metaphor than "crutch" in my personal experience. I "tweak" in RAW all the time....(alright, alright...we can say "fix" on occasion.) Given the large number of variables in location shooting, I'd be an idiot not to shoot in RAW for the kind of work I'm doing.

Some folks shoot exclusively JPEG, and rightfully so, for the kind of work that they are doing. But to insist, or even insinuate that RAW or JPEG is the "best way" under all circumstances is being naive. I honestly don't understand why this is such a heated debate. Both abilities come built into the camera. Pick one. Heck, pick both.

[tzalman]

Highlight reconstruction, like any digital interpolation, can sometimes be very good and it is sometimes dreadful - false colors or grey instead of color. It should always be only an unfortunate, even when unavoidable, alternative to proper exposure. OTOH, "proper exposure" for RAW can certainly be considered that which utilizes the extra headroom available, even if it requires pulling back brightness in the converter.

The OP, Damien (a frequent poster here and, almost always, a source of good advice), is, I think, experienced enough to know the difference between ETTR and blown highlights. Apparently the photographer with whom he is dealing doesn't.

[Budley007]

But there is a possibility that he is doing it on purpose for the sake of capturing more data and therefore creating the best image possible. It's called exposing to the right and is a very well known practice done all the time by very high end photographers.

Yup, this is common for me. I can't set up multiply flash units, so I expose to get more shadow detail. I got the idea a few years ago after reading Bruce Fraser's RAW book. It has something to do with the sensor's dynamic range being uneven or some such. The method is sound.

[chukdivad]

If you're not good enough to shoot jpeg, you're not good enough.
I'm not good enough. Raw+jpeg rules.

[Dermit]

What a lot of people do not realize is that the way it was explained to me was that the image you see on the LCD screen on the back of your camera is actually a small (thumbnail) jpg version of your image no matter what mode you capture in. And the histogram data is representative of that image and NOT the actual full RAW file you captured. So don't read too much into what you see on camera.

[mattograph]

What a lot of people do not realize is that the way it was explained to me was that the image you see on the LCD screen on the back of your camera is actually a small (thumbnail) jpg version of your image no matter what mode you capture in. And the histogram data is representative of that image and NOT the actual full RAW file you captured. So don't read too much into what you see on camera.

By implication, the histogram data on camera would then be different then the data you would see in ACR or DPP?

[Kristy]

If you're not good enough to shoot jpeg, you're not good enough.



I'll give you this.... :) I shoot RAW because I know I'm going to screw up the exposure to some degree... and the idea of being able to make changes post capture... is so reassuring. Someday maybe I'll get it right... maybe not... but I can rest comfortably knowing that there is a tool available to help me out along my journey.

I often think of the old film photographers... and marvel at their expertise... and level of perfection in the art of exposing an image to meet their vision. They are the true artists in my opinion.

We can manipulate post capture and that is amazing.. and fun! But I agree that the true pros may very well be few and far between. Thank goodness for RAW and Photoshop. They have allowed me to create beautiful images that people will treasure for a lifetime... and that, to me is what it's all about...

The journey is the journey, and we all arive at our destination by one means or another.... but most importantly is the end result is what matters most. :)

[tzalman]

By implication, the histogram data on camera would then be different then the data you would see in ACR or DPP?
The histogram in ACR is based on a preliminary conversion to an RGB image according to the parameters you have set or the application defaults. Like the camera histogram it is not a representation of the RAW data, but they will differ according to the nature of the conversion. DPP, OTOH, shows two histograms - an RGB histogram and what purports to be a RAW histogram but is not, since it presents data modified by white balance application.

[René Damkot]

By implication, the histogram data on camera would then be different then the data you would see in ACR or DPP?

ACR: Likely.
DPP: Don't think so, since DPP uses the "in camera parameters" as a starting point.

Also makes a difference wether you set DPPs histogram to "before" or "after adjustment" ;)

Edit: Tzalman beat me to it, and said it better...

[neil_r]

If you're not good enough to shoot jpeg, you're not good enough.

And my inflammatory statement is:-

If all you can post is bollox, you should not be posting ;-)

[sevillafox]

If you're not good enough to shoot jpeg, you're not good enough.



This sounds like "if you're not good enough to shoot film, you're not good enough." OR "if you're not good enough to shoot slide film, you're not good enough."

Tools are meant to be used. Part of being a photographer is using the best tools available to you. Why NOT shoot RAW when the image really matters?

We all like to criticize others to make ourselves feel better (more superior)about the way we do things. But, unless we truely know the thought behind the actions, there's no way to do anything but make assumptions.

To the OP, maybe his shooting RAW and ETTR makes your job harder but he may have a valid reason for doing it. Communication is the key to alleviating misunderstanding no matter what. Plus, it may help resolve the situation and prevent you from needing further venting opportunities. But, I appreciate the frustration it causes you and understand the need to vent. Venting is done so perhaps it's time to solve the problem.

[GeoffSobering]

If you're not good enough to shoot jpeg, you're not good enough.

How about these recasts:

"If you're not smart enough to shoot raw, you're not smart enough."

"If you're too arrogant to shoot raw, you're too arrogant."

"If you just don't know how to use your tools, you're inexperienced."

I don't think raw, jpeg, or film has anything to do with the problem you encountered. You just have an incompetent photographer working for you.

And finally:

"If you can't help making over-generalized statements on Internet forums, then you're just a troll".

Please don't feed the trolls. :rolleyes:

Cheers,

Geoff S.

[mattograph]

And my inflammatory statement is:-

If all you can post is bollox, you should not be posting ;-)


What is bollox? I didn't know, so I looked it up.

Now I know......

So, at least I can say I learned something from this post -- (actually, two things -- the whole histogram thing was a revelation too.):)

[BoySpot]

The strange thing that I thought about when reading the original post was not about his method for exposing and post processing but that he should hand over his RAW files and not process them himself. I tend to take the view that people see my work and judge it so I should have it looking as I intend before they see it. Crappy shots should be culled from the delivered material and post production, even if some simple tweaks should also be done.

This tends to show itself with things like wedding photographers these days. I have been to a number of weddings where the photos have been uploaded for sale. There are thousands of them to choose from and lots are just plain crap. No effort seems to have gone into selecting the good images and focusing the customers on them.

I guess I don't care how the image is achieved as much as caring what people think when they see them - which obviously leads to a fair amount of disappointment with my shots!

Am I hijacking or does anyone agree?

Rob

[cdifoto]

I have never created an image that was perfect straight out of the camera.

[sevillafox]

I have never created an image that was perfect straight out of the camera.

Yeah, but we all now you're a hack anyway. ;):p;)

[mattograph]

The strange thing that I thought about when reading the original post was not about his method for exposing and post processing but that he should hand over his RAW files and not process them himself. I tend to take the view that people see my work and judge it so I should have it looking as I intend before they see it. Crappy shots should be culled from the delivered material and post production, even if some simple tweaks should also be done.

This tends to show itself with things like wedding photographers these days. I have been to a number of weddings where the photos have been uploaded for sale. There are thousands of them to choose from and lots are just plain crap. No effort seems to have gone into selecting the good images and focusing the customers on them.

I guess I don't care how the image is achieved as much as caring what people think when they see them - which obviously leads to a fair amount of disappointment with my shots!

Am I hijacking or does anyone agree?

Rob

I agree with you.

It's not like the whole idea of post production was a by-product of the digital revolution -- post production has been with us since the dawn of photography. Its been done in the darkroom and on the artist's easel for decades. Digital just gives you more control and the ability to recover from a multitude more sins. Plus, computers don't stink like darkrooms do.:)

[Mike McCusker]

Yeah, but we all now you're a hack anyway. ;):p;)

You tell em Tiff, btw, how is the pregnancy coming along?

[cdifoto]

Yeah, but we all now you're a hack anyway. ;):p;)
Oh yeah. I forgot.

[sevillafox]

You tell em Tiff, btw, how is the pregnancy coming along?

I couldn't resist. :D

OT, it's going spendidly. I'm having another little boy either August 18th or 19th (holding out for the 19th).

[GeoffSobering]

To the OP, maybe his shooting RAW and ETTR makes your job harder but he may have a valid reason for doing it.
I don't generally think that "blowing out the highlights" is part of ETTR. Isn't the whole point to expose so that the pixels you want to retain highlight detail are just filled to capacity?

Personally, I'm really happy with the exposure on a shot when bumping the exposure-slider in ACR up just a little bit causes the bright areas of the image to clip (ex. holding the ALT key while adjusting the exposure slider). Then I use the recovery-slider to just clean up the edges of specular highlights and the like.

The strange thing that I thought about when reading the original post was not about his method for exposing and post processing but that he should hand over his RAW files and not process them himself.

It's fairly common in commercial settings where the client has an in-house graphic/photo department. Giving the raw files lets the folks familiar with the needs of the end-user (ex. exactly how the photo will be reproduced) take the original data and process it exactly how they want it.

Cheers,

Geoff S.

[sevillafox]

I don't generally think that "blowing out the highlights" is part of ETTR. Isn't the whole point to expose so that the pixels you want to retain highlight detail are just filled to capacity?

Personally, I'm really happy with the exposure on a shot when bumping the exposure-slider in ACR up just a little bit causes the bright areas of the image to clip (ex. holding the ALT key while adjusting the exposure slider). Then I use the recovery-slider to just clean up the edges of specular highlights and the like.


I didn't catch that he was "blowing out the highlights." My bad.

[CyberDyneSystems]

What is bollox? I didn't know, so I looked it up.

Now I know......

So, at least I can say I learned something from this post -- (actually, two things -- the whole histogram thing was a revelation too.):)

So long as we learned something today, I'd say this was as much as we can expect from this one.

Not to diminish the importance of "Bollox" in any way at all, to the contrary, this was well worth the effort then! ;) :lol: