Raw: A crutch for incompetent photographers

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.

Whahahaha. I know that feeling

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.

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.

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

Jarrad wrote in post #5483678
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

Damo77 wrote in post #5483630
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......

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.

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.

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.

Travisj wrote in post #5483963
Guess you could say the same thing about PS. If you can't get it right in the camera the first time and all......

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

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

Damo77 wrote in post #5483630
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!

Victoria Bampton wrote in post #5484189
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..

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 ...

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.