Lightroom - any need for RAW?

cosworth wrote in post #5224746
Excitement maybe, but I'm quite used to people ripping me a new one and not really knowing what they are talking about. The opposite is the case here.

I think you meant the other way around. I really don't think you understand that I''m not "ripping you a new one", 2, that I don't disagree with the position that RAW holds more data.

cosworth wrote in post #5224746
I'm suggesting I want all the data possible. and yes, after all these years I'm aware that jpg are alterable. So are scans of 100 year old prints.

So back on track. Shoot RAW. Get all the data you paid for. End of story.

You are correct.

Question, why do camera makers even give folks a choice? I have loads of JPG settings, but only one RAW choice.

Originally Posted by stillresonance

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'text/html'

I think the analogy can be made a little more precisely. RAW is not just like having a negative. It is more like having the undeveloped film. When you shot film you could do things to manipulate the image through the developing process you could have your film pushed a couple of stops, you could even have color correction done on it, but once it was done that was the only chance you had. You couldn't go back and redevelop that film.

You can change the recipe around before it goes in the oven but after it comes out you can't rebake a cake.
Then, what is JPG, because the same can be done? Moreover, if you use DPP the camera settings are saved, so One could just batch to print.

Again, I'm not distoling the virtues of RAW but the analogies don't work these days.

True it is hard to get a perfect analogy because it is a different medium and process, and if you never shot on film they may be meaningless to you anyways. But let's see if we can try.

I would say that in the context of a film->digital analogy, that JPEG is a sort of hybrid between the negative/slide and the print (perhaps more like an inter-negative). It has all the resolution of the original image so in that respect it is more like a negative/slide but in terms of the abilities for affecting the tonality of the image it is more limited than what you would have working with a negative.

The closest thing to a RAW that I can think of is the undeveloped film, there were many different choices of developer that you could use all of which would produce a different look. I can't name off hand the differences in developers as I only have a limited expericence with processing my own film but there's a whole myriad of things you can do to affect the image before the film is even dry. (I was in a class, where one of the other students actually developed his film using coffee). Timing of the development also had an impact on the image, the contrast, the densities, the film grain could all be affected in significant ways before ever making a print. Having the ability to control these variables allows for creative freedom and the possiblity of overcoming technical limitations at the time of exposure (such as having to push film for low light situations). Of course film choice itself played an important role too.

I guess you could say RAW is not just the equivalent of the undeveloped film, it is like being able to make your exposure and then pick your film at the store and decide how to develop it.

Zazoh wrote in post #5226782

stillresonance wrote in post #5226134
I think the analogy can be made a little more precisely. RAW is not just like having a negative. It is more like having the undeveloped film. When you shot film you could do things to manipulate the image through the developing process you could have your film pushed a couple of stops, you could even have color correction done on it, but once it was done that was the only chance you had. You couldn't go back and redevelop that film.

You can change the recipe around before it goes in the oven but after it comes out you can't rebake a cake.

Then, what is JPG, because the same can be done? Moreover, if you use DPP the camera settings are saved, so One could just batch to print.

Again, I'm not distoling the virtues of RAW but the analogies don't work these days.

The same can not be done with a JPEG - that's the whole point of shooting RAW. If your JPEG has blown highlights, for example, they cannot be recovered. If you had the RAW file for the same image, they probably could be.

If you want to use an analogy, then I think that the 'undeveloped film' one is closest to the true situation. I've used it myself when trying to explain the differences to digital newbies

Mark1 wrote in post #5205387
... There is no excuse NOT to shoot in RAW. I shoot even snapshots in RAW. Pictures of stuff for insurance records... everything!

I too shoot RAW but I can fathom situations where it isn't neccessary. Photos for insurance record purposes being one of them....

When I "used" to shoot raw I used Adobe Bridge to load them all and process them one at a time because every few images were in different lighting. I hate lightroom...you cannot "save as" when processed raw. you have to export..Since CS3 came out I use the raw editor to process my jpegs and I'll never go back to raw. Raw is an excuse not to try to get proper WB and as close to great exposure. Why should raw shooters strive to be great, they can be made great and "cover" for mistakes. I prefer shooting jpegs, keeps me on my toes to do things right..get it right in camera negates the need for raw..IMHO.

gcogger wrote in post #5228542
The same can not be done with a JPEG - that's the whole point of shooting RAW. If your JPEG has blown highlights, for example, they cannot be recovered. If you had the RAW file for the same image, they probably could be.

If you want to use an analogy, then I think that the 'undeveloped film' one is closest to the true situation. I've used it myself when trying to explain the differences to digital newbies

Use CS3 and I bet you could recover the same highlights as you can in Raw..just use the raw editor for jpegs and you have the same features/sliders, etc available. The only thing lacking is the WB selection but I find the "auto" WB very adequate. But like I said..set your camera to the image you want and shoot it and you got it..get it right in camera or close to getting it right and you can do the rest in CS3 raw editor for your jpegs. Why should raw shooters strive to be better? No need to..shoot jpeg and it will keep you on your toes to get things right or close to it. You can do a +4 in recovery of exposure, etc in jpegs, same as raw.
I'll never go back to raw..raw makes photographers too lazy to learn to work without it.

Shooting RAW is not just about fixing errors, there's creative reasons to have that extra data available. If all you're doing is just straight shooting, then yeah you may not on the surface see a pressing need to have RAW, but at that point you're stuck you can't go back. I mean sure you can do stuff with JPEGs but it's not the same as having the original pure data as it came off the camera sensor.

If shooting only JPEG works for you, that's totally valid. I could see shooting JPEG in a situation where you want a longer burst in high speed shooting for sports/action. To be honest though that is the only advantage I can see for JPEG and that has to do with limits in the buffer, it's not a format issue it's a hardware issue. One could argue that file size is an issue but with as cheap as storage has become, that is becoming an argument with little to stand on.

stillresonance wrote in post #5233676
...

If shooting only JPEG works for you, that's totally valid. I could see shooting JPEG in a situation where you want a longer burst in high speed shooting for sports/action. To be honest though that is the only advantage I can see for JPEG and that has to do with limits in the buffer, it's not a format issue it's a hardware issue. One could argue that file size is an issue but with as cheap as storage has become, that is becoming an argument with little to stand on.

Agree, Incidently I shoot RAW, but I still don't like the analogies posited. Because, as I posted earlier in this thread, maybe it was another, some blown highlights can recovered in RAW, other than that, ANY adjustment to the RAW file CAN be done to a JPG, you can push a RAW further because there is more data to push.

Still though, how come camera makers give is one RAW setting, now some cameras have a small RAW, but 9 or so JPG settings. We are obviously comparing large fine JPGs to RAW, but does anyone ever use the other JPGs?

People who shoot for the family album don't need 3400x2300 for a 4x6 print so they have a choice. For the most part a jpg is finished when it comes out of the camera.

Please show a list of the professionals who shoot jpg. I'd like to get it tattooed on my baby finger. I get my white balance and exposure right in camera and still prefer a 12/16 bit image. I can export to 16bit tiff or jpg without losing detail. I'd also rather use the 700.00 software I bought to sharpen and saturate the image the way I want to, not the way a hardware engineer thinks I should do it the same for every image.

Shooting wrote in post #5233225
Use CS3 and I bet you could recover the same highlights as you can in Raw..just use the raw editor for jpegs and you have the same features/sliders, etc available.
...
You can do a +4 in recovery of exposure, etc in jpegs, same as raw.

I don't believe that's even remotely true, but I'm willing to be proved wrong

Take a look at my post here, with a couple of crops from standard JPEGs compared to the same image processed from a RAW file. Please try and use CS3 to make the JPEG have the same highlight detail as the RAW version - I only have CS2, or I'd try it myself. If you can recover the highlights from the JPEG as well as the RAW version, then you'll have convinced me.

SlowBlink wrote in post #5234295
...Please show a list of the professionals who shoot jpg.

I find comments like these are the ones that keep these debates so myopic and polar.

There are loads of Professionals shooting jpg, and there are several different types of professionals. Certainly those needing large buffers or have proprietary workflow shoot JPG.

The DPreview forms have Professional Wedding shooters and I've seen a few websites, where Wedding shooters charge more for RAW shooting.

Different strokes for different folks. Not all of us use the same lens in the same situation or the same body for that matter. Use the tools and the settings that work for you and who cares what others use.

I shoot RAW but almost want to shoot JPG and grab a non-L lens, just to prove a point.

Shooting wrote in post #5233195
When I "used" to shoot raw I used Adobe Bridge to load them all and process them one at a time because every few images were in different lighting. I hate lightroom...you cannot "save as" when processed raw. you have to export..Since CS3 came out I use the raw editor to process my jpegs and I'll never go back to raw. Raw is an excuse not to try to get proper WB and as close to great exposure. Why should raw shooters strive to be great, they can be made great and "cover" for mistakes. I prefer shooting jpegs, keeps me on my toes to do things right..get it right in camera negates the need for raw..IMHO.

My clients deserve better than that. I am, after all, human.

Shooting wrote in post #5233225
Use CS3 and I bet you could recover the same highlights as you can in Raw...

You can visit my website for the address to which you may send the money.

Shooting wrote in post #5233225
..raw makes photographers too lazy to learn to work without it.

Zazoh wrote in post #5248604
I find comments like these are the ones that keep these debates so myopic and polar.

Oh the irony.

Lazy is a personality trait, not a camera function. If you have low standards, you can be lazy with JPEGs as well.

Zazoh wrote in post #5234139
Agree, Incidently I shoot RAW, but I still don't like the analogies posited. Because, as I posted earlier in this thread, maybe it was another, some blown highlights can recovered in RAW, other than that, ANY adjustment to the RAW file CAN be done to a JPG, you can push a RAW further because there is more data to push.

I'm human. Brides care about the dress. As a wedding photographer, those are the only ingredients I need to shoot RAW.