RAW is for lousy photographers (but good computer nerds)

Okay, the subject line is an overstatement to attract attention, but...

I was posting on another threadthat I found that I was using RAW mode ever more, as it let me work with colour balance, rescue blown highlights, get shadow detail, and even minor things like straighten images without loss of picture quality, when I suddenly realised:

If I were a decent photographer, I'd be doing that kind of stuff in the camera, and getting the same effect in JPGs, without all that silly messing around in Lightroom.

I'm a computer nerd. I admit it. I am totally in my comfort zone editing, tweaking and hopefully improving things through use of a keyboard, mouse and monitor.

So should I be forcing myself to go back to shooting JPGs, and try to get the picture right first time?

regards,
/alan

Yes, absoloutely, you should attempt to get everything right in the camera before you start post-processing.

But, shooting in RAW doesn't force you into doing any post processing at all - it just gives you some leeway, and a greater bit-depth for when you do want to push the processing more.

Consider this. Given the gear I've got, and my scant knowledge of photography, I'm highly likely to take shots in RAW and do no processing to many of my shots (other than resizing). However, if I did want to process some for creative reasons, I know I have the added bit-depth in RAW to help out.

This is easy, because I carry around five 4Gb cards.

Shooting RAW doesn't make me a lazy photographer. It enables me to be more flexible with what I do with my captures.

It's an important distinction between the two.

During the film days, all decent photographers were using the Land Polaroid cameras. They got the image coming straight out of the camera and didn't mess with any of that post processing stuff like developing the films and prints.

:p

Oy, not another raw vs jpeg thread again...

I shoot raw because it allows me greater flexibility with my images.

Shoot RAW & JPEG and you will have the best of bother worlds.

Okay, maybe I'm being hard on myself. But sometimes I look back at my editing and wonder whether I should have been able to make the picture more like that when I took it, rather than relying on PP to fix it.

regards,
/alan

Alan, the only way to get better is to learn from every time you shoot. No matter how much I shoot I am always trying to get better.

Alan, do you not realize that by shooting jpeg you are letting the camera's computer do that processing for you.
You set the picture styles and that is a form of PP

Developing your own film negatives was lousy for photographers (but good for chemists)

alan_potter wrote in post #5729883
So should I be forcing myself to go back to shooting JPGs, and try to get the picture right first time?

alan_potter,
Its up to you
If you like shooting RAW and working on your images in the computer then do so.

I personally like to get it right in the camera (like I did with film), and don't need to shoot RAW.

qtaran111 wrote in post #5730174
Developing your own film negatives was lousy for photographers (but good for chemists)

Seriously. Photographers just do straight prints, never considering dodging or burning or using different contrast papers or developers or correcting color in any fashion if they shoot color. Anything more, and they're fancy chemists or something. I did shoot transparencies mostly when I shot film, and while I did often scan and do further editing that way, certainly not as much as I might have done from a B&W negative.

I like that RAW allows more post-shot editing and that you can do multiple different things should you want. Shooting RAW allows flexibility, the JPG processing routines in the camera are limiting and destructive to the image data.

They're both two different approaches, to say that one must be a computer wizard to work with RAW is kind of like forgetting how photographers had to learn to be chemists and to learn other skills to work in a chemical darkroom. It's really not very different.

RAW for Dummies

-=The RAW Faqs=- RAW Processing info and links

Take a RAW + max jpeg shot. Convert the RAW file to jpeg & look at the two file sizes. A max jpg from my 20D is 2,754 KB. The exact same shot with the jpg extracted from RAW is 4,315 KB which is 1.57X larger.
Why throw those extra bits away? True, you might think you won't see the difference in a web image on your screen, but that's not true.

"Right first time?" is good. But look at what happens if you have to tweak just a little bit: Look at post 58 on page 2 in this thread:
Auto White Balance - works really well
https://photography-on-the.net …hp?p=2208481&po​stcount=58

More info on how correcting WB affects exposure levels in a bad way:
White Balance, the Secret Weapon

Keep in mind that the "correct" balance may not be the only balance that looks good. Some images look better warmer & cooler than the "correct" balance.

If someone is a great photographer, and gets exposure perfectly in the camera every time, then how does shooting RAW hurt that? I would think that a great photographer would want control over the final image regardless, and the option to do post processing even if it's not necessary. By shooting JPG, the camera is doing the processing. So regardless of how good the photographer is, there is still post processing being done. It's just a matter of whether you let the camera do it for you, or you reserve the ability to do that for yourself. Also with RAW you then have the option to save in different formats without loss of data. I'd also say that if someone believes it takes a computer wizard to use RAW, then maybe they shouldn't be shooting digital in the first place. The computer is just a tool in the process, something that is necessary in the digital world.

How do yall edit raw? I somehow did it once, I used some CD that came with the camera, but changing settings took too much time, and felt almost "unofficial" on how to play with the photo. is there a faster processing program, that feels more solid when editing?

I have a bunch of raw photos sitting around that Ive never touched because its too much trouble with the stuff I have.

alan_potter wrote in post #5729883
If I were a decent photographer, I'd be doing that kind of stuff in the camera, and getting the same effect in JPGs, without all that silly messing around in Lightroom.

If what you're shooting allows you those luxuries then it is silly to be mucking about in LR (or an RAW converter) more than you absolutely must.

OTOH, if (like me) you have no control over the lighting (level or color) or subject positioning (dancers rarely stop to pose for a quick pic mid routine) then RAW is an essential part of getting a good end product.

I just finished up PP on my latest dance recital, 3 days of performances and just over 3900 pictures for 41 dance routines + final bows. Just under half made it through the editing process (up from ~ 35% last year), and I think (hope) I have a really good cross section of the performers. Without RAW it would have been closer to 10%, blown (in the JPG) highlights are one of the biggest problems I have with stage lighting, color balance is a close second.

RAW is about flexibility and options, not about being lazy.