Do we really need to shoot RAW?

This discussion was started in this thread:

http://www.photography​-on-the.net …topic.php?p=176​664#176664

but I thought I would bring it up from the depths of a side note within that thread to the main level. Do we really need to shoot RAW as Ken Rockwell explains

shniks wrote:

bradinvancouver wrote:
What does everyone think of this article by Ken Rockwell (a professional photographer - extremely interesting site) that basically says shooting in RAW is a complete waste of time? http://www.kenrockwell​.com/tech/raw.htm

Well, I think he sounds kind of resentful in the article. Looks like he hates the new digital era, its as if he is a photographer from the old film days that is having trouble adjusting to the new. Just because he does not have time to 'piddle' with photoshop, doesnt mean the rest of us don't. I really enjoy photoshop, it is a tool to make our photos better, not much different to buying a better flash or a tripod to improve your photos.

What I have noticed is that I really don't need RAW. I shoot RAW when I have a specific "thing" I want to do in mind. Like playing with some settings or white balance, or trying something extreme. But most of the time, I shoot SuperFine Large JPGs and they serve me just fine. I read Ken Rockwell's exposition on the RAW format, and although he is opinionated, I don't stray too far from what he is saying. He could kick all of our collected *sses in photography with one hand tied behind his back using JPG mode. Check out his portfolio. Also, in my own work, I shoot JPGs and all of my photos in the portfolio link given below were shot in SL JPG mode and are wonderfully detailed. This should be made into a new thread to debate over.

Even my now "famous" bumblebee wings picture:

http://www.photo.net …?photo_id=17755​92&size=lg

was shot as a JPG. I'll tell you, with my slow G3, if I was shooting RAW that day, I would have never caught this fast moving bee. I've printed this picture blown up past 11X13 and it looks great with good detail and crisp wings and hair.

What do you guys think?

I dont use raw currently. I cant afford to buy more memory cards at the moment, so I am using superfine jpeg. I tried fine jpg and also smaller sized jpeg, but was disappointed with the difference in quality. I think I will use raw in the future (when I finally save more $$$) because of the increased versatility. But I cant really say if quality is much different, haven't used raw enough to make a valid judgement.

after seeing that bumble bee photo, I'm going back to JPEG.

I was presented with this article some time ago,. here is what I had to say about Ken's article then...

***************

Although the very breif first paragraph on jpeg was indeed to the point and spot on,. Your pal Ken lost me in the first sentence of the second paragrph "RAW" where he immediately isolates himself by referring to all of those who shoot raw as "people who intend to spend a lot of time twiddling"

I won't go on too much about this first statement... other than to say that for some of us twiddlers,. the very reason we use RAW is to minimize the amount of twiddling it takes to get the image correct. As RAW files are inherently open to easier and more fluid manipulation,. it takes me far less time to get a RAW file "right" than it does with a jpeg.

His second sentence is that "RAW is very popular for people shooting landscapes with digital cameras, which is not what digital cameras are for"

So,. now he has not only alienated anyone who uses the very file type that the camera manufacturers recommend you to use,.. but then he goes on to belittle anyone who would have the audacity to use a digital camera for any subject other than those that are on the "KenRockwell.COM official approved subject list ©"

What is this guy the RIAA? Orin Hatch? John Ashcroft for goods sake?

But this is the crowning glory;

For these applications I use large format 4x5" film instead for much better quality, thus you see why I don't use RAW. RAW is very popular for people shooting landscapes with digital cameras, which is not what digital cameras are for. Unfortunately this is becoming popular among amateurs, but remember that for amateurs the fun is in making the photo, and for fun digital is king. Personally I focus on the final image, for which big film excels.

Essentially translated,.

my film plane is bigger than yours,. there fore I am much better than any digital photogrpher who is by inference an amateur"



Fine,. keep shooting large format at $10.00 a shot for film and leave us digital amateurs alone. Why even delve further into the benifits of a digital file type if by doing so you have ranked yourself among us weekend shooters of toy digitals?

Anyway,. any one with such clear and obvious prejudice and animosity towards anyone who does anything in any way other than "his" way... is in no position to be considered an even handed judge of any subject whatsoever,. let alone a subject that his own passions have clearly blinded him to any kind of open minded understanding of the what he has perceived to be the wrong way of doing things.

An arogant blow hard with zero objectivity.

Lastly what is the point of the article?

He can't sway opinion with it,. as it is written specifically to anger anyone who does not agree with him 100%

So,. the article is written to coddle and preserve his own strong beliefs? Why?

I just don't get it.

As to RAW Vs. jpeg,. I think this article does nothing to help answer a question that really not only doesn't need to be argued,. but it doesn't even need to be asked.

The answer is far to simple to merit such violence.

They both serve different purposes and application. They are both valid for different people using there photography for different tasks.

And no one task has any more legitimacy than another. This guy is taking it to the level of religious dogma where only those that pray to my God get to go to heaven and evryone else is wrong and goes to hell. Bull!

does this guy have ANY experience with RAW? ... or JPEG??

He sounds like some child who wont give into digital photography... thats great he uses film, film is cool, but he doesnt have to write a full web page about JPEG vs. RAW and keep promoting film lol

edit: I usually shoot JPG unless Im taking macros of flowers

No one NEEDS to shoot RAW.

With my infrared-modified G1 I have gone back to JPEG, choosing instead to use custom WB before I shoot and keeping contrast low while exposing for the highlights. I still might need some adjustment, but I have only a 128mb flash card for that camera and jpeg simply gives me more shots per shoot.

But with my 10D I shoot only RAW, because the workflow when using conversion software like Capture One is incredibly efficient and a huge time saver.

Um , Raw is perfect for post-processing. For example, you can change the image in Photoshop CS to different camera settings, than your orignially set. Because you save each color channel seperately in a raw ( 16/12 bit ) as opposed to the JPEg's 8bit, you lose alot of information. I use raw to change the exposure compensation, shadows, contrast, lens aspect and such after I had taken the picture. Very useful if you need to correct a problem, or set a certain white balance. Editing can be done in raw without loss of quality. But its more on a professional level, so Its upto the photographer to find usefulness in what they do.

Question. What is the fuss about Mr Rockwell arguments. Admittedly they could have been phrased better but in the main he is correct.

A professional photographer who is in a time related seneraio (news or similar) just does not have the luxury of waiting for the file to be transferred let alone converted then adjusted.

His caveat about formats is well understood in the computer world. Very few people have 5 1/4" disks let alone the drives to read the data on them. Tiff/tga/png and even raw are all formats that will fall by the wayside over the next few years so what software are you going to get then to read these precious files. At least negatives like books are semi permanent and viewable / readable.

An example taken from the UK. Several years ago mid 80's the BBC commisioned an electronic doomsday book. State of the art then. 20years on nothing could read the data, specialist software/hardware had to be commisioned to restore the information.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/​1/hi/technology/253439​1.stm

This could lead on to another thread.

For those that did not read the BBC article the original 1086 doomsday book is still going fine in the records office at Kew.


Getting back to the subject, I am not a professional, I own both film and digital based cameras and I prefer my G5 over my Minolta optical because of speed and convience (processing cost is also a factor ). Yet when necessary I will use the optical camera, Ultra wide lenses, fast telephotos, ultra high speed film, ultra low speed film. Hourse for courses.
And if going somewhere where I have never been before the chances I will take both medium.

---------------

Yet for all the bantering in this thread I agree with CyberDyneSystems comment that it does not answer the RAW vs JPG answer at all.

At the end of the day what does RAW have over JPG and the converse. It will boil down to what is best for the end user and how they work.

All we can say with any certanty is that

- it has a range of "x" stops vs jpgs "y"
- has a certain number of bits per channel
- post vs in camera processing causes these things to happen to your final image
- and similar

And to make recommendations, based on personal experience and those of professional testers, like Steves Digicams web site.

The problem lies in defining the starting points and the reference standards.

Eg on my 2.4Mhz P4 with 1Gb memory it takes around 5 minutes to convert Raw to Tiff using canons own software. Yet I have not mentioned what, if anything, I have running in the background using computer resources, speed/size of hard disks, swap space. Even operating system - although by implication I am using MS windows (XP, 2000 ?). So my figure is worthless. So time of conversion is not worth looking at.

Some say Breeze Bowser or PhotoshopCS convert better. Better than ? what are your starting points. Is it a case of they look better - if so is your monitor calibrated - (CRT vs LCD) - Screen age, colour temperature of display etc.

What is your final destination: web, print, digital photobook.

If its print, the list of options goes on and on - Paper/inks/drivers/pri​nter model...........

etc. etc.

Jay

Ridiculous.
JPEG is very nice for some shots, RAW rules for ALL shots, I would hate to loose that one perfect shot because I shot RAW.

All DSLR pictures need sharpening and levels according to me, so better do this in RAW than in a lossy format.

Sharpening in camera is an idea but also a comprimise in quality.
For journalists JPEG is fine and the best solution, for the serious photographer I only believe in RAW.

Greetings,
Frank

This is not always true

Just look at what Sports Illustrated recomend their photographers shoot:
www.siphoto.com
(see camera settings)

There is no right or wrong, I will not form an opinion either way.
Shooting JPEG or RAW is a means to an end. Think about what that end is for you before you decide what format you want to shoot.

I'm no professional, and being so, I don't have any deadlines. I shoot in RAW almost always. It's just more flexible for me.

If I shoot an IR shot with a custom white balance, then shoot something else and forget to change it, it's very easy to correct. If I had to correct it as a .jpg, it just wouldn't happen. Just too much work... and I'm pretty sure I could never totally recover it. I need that flexibility, because I'm rather scatterbrained.

I'm one of those amateurs that shoots landscapes with a digital camera. I also like to twiddle with images, and 16-bit TIFF's are much "cleaner", and much more permissive when it comes to editing. In my opinion, it's fun. I wouldn't do it if it weren't.

I agree that both formats have their own pros, and cons. For what I'm doing, RAW just works better for me, but I also see the benefits of .jpgs, especially write speed.

A few comments:-

garethhhhh:

I agree I made a generalisation, but this was more to deal with Kens musings than specifics. I have seen press users use digital. But what format were they sending in. Prob jpg. I edited out my earlier thoughts about range/resolution of ccds vs film - and which would win.

Re Sports Illustrated : You have to discuss your picture before sending which implies that you already have the image saved to a facility from where you can upload it. So post processing may or may not have taken place.

I also agree that whatever format, jpg, raw or film it is a means to an end - hourse for courses as I said earlier.

J.A.F. Doorhof:
Raw Rules : Sounds like a mantra. You made a statment can you define why it rules for you and under what circumstances.

If I was using some computers I might not be able to use raw because the format is not supported, the machine itself lacked resources etc.

Laziferous:
When using the G5, like you I shoot in Raw. Yet my other digital camera does not have RAW output so its jpg when I use it.

"I shoot in raw, because its more flxible for me". Could not agree better with that or your other comments, but I could not say that to another user who has never used RAW because he has no comparison - more flexible than what.


Jay

J.A.F. Doorhof wrote:

Ridiculous.
JPEG is very nice for some shots, RAW rules for ALL shots, I would hate to loose that one perfect shot because I shot RAW.

All DSLR pictures need sharpening and levels according to me, so better do this in RAW than in a lossy format.

Um, wrong. RAW is completely uncompressed, so whatever you could shoot in JPEG will be the same in RAW. The difference is just that raw saves every single bit of data, and can take longer to write onto your compactflash card cuz of the larger size. a Digital SLR doesnt need sharpening or levels, it helps even with a point and shoot like the G3 I used to have, but doesnt need to be. The biggest factor is, with a G3 it takes forever to shoot raw, with most digital SLRs it does not. The raw feature is avalible to you on a G3. but because of how slow the camera is raw isnt ideal shooting format if you need to do sports, actions, quick, anything of tha tnature. Also if you shoot with a G3/G5 , you dont even need Large/Superfine, with my G3 I have always shot in Large/Fine and have yet to really notice a difference between fine and superfine, even when printed out 8x11.5

All in and All, I definitly disagree with the statement that DSLR people shoot in raw, cuz their pictures wont come out right the way they are shot.

Also I am on a Athlon XP 2500+ , which is roughly a 1.7Ghtz machine, no freaking way is it going to take me 5 to 6 minutes to convert a raw to a working format like a 16/12 bit tiff. In photoshop CS, I open up the raw window, change the exposure I need to, then click ok, it loads it into photoshop was a 16bit working picture, i can mess with it from there, and all this happens in less than 30 seconds.

I thought that was a given. Since this is a Canon forum, and we're talking about Canon cameras, the only other alternative to RAW, is .jpg right? I don't know of any Canon cameras that capture in any other other format other than RAW, or .jpg.... doesn't mean they don't exist, I just don't know of them. I have been known to make references to things I don't know much about though (Ansel Adams for instance ).

i read somewhere that Raw IS compressed, something like 1/3 of
a fully uncompressed TIFF file.


eric1