RAW is for lousy photographers (but good computer nerds)

I know exactly what you mean, Alan! Half the time I feel like RAW is the only reason any of my pictures would be acceptable.

alan_potter wrote in post #5735703
...I just wonder whether using it makes it too easy to "just shoot" and worry about the technicalities - especially colour balance...

Please correct me if I am wrong, but your concern seems to be predicated on the assumptions that composition, exposure, use of shading, lighting, perspective, depth of field, and an interesting subject matter are a given, and that it is the method of handling the "technicalities" that either makes photography easy or difficult.

Moreover, and it cannot be stressed enough, setting parameters for color, contrast, saturation, and sharpness in camera is a form of post processing; one that is essentially instantaneous and convenient, but also one that is more limited than using external post processing software.

Of course, how any of this matters depends on what you shoot and what your objective is. However, the quality of a photograph is simply not defined by how well the camera's output can mirror what is before the lens; that is only one aspect of it.

Just shoot…just shoot what? For me, that's often the most difficult aspect of photography.

sjones wrote in post #5736155
Please correct me if I am wrong, but your concern seems to be predicated on the assumptions that composition, exposure, use of shading, lighting, perspective, depth of field, and an interesting subject matter are a given, and that it is the method of handling the "technicalities" that either makes photography easy or difficult.

Actually, it's in many ways the opposite. I worry that I am "just taking" the picture, confident that I can fake up some of the aspects you describe in Lightroom.

Exposure can - to a degree - be corrected. Shading and lighting can be modified. Composition can be improved. So I "just take" photographs without thinking about how to get the best from thepicture there and then - I can always fix it in Lightroom.

I think this means that I spend too much time post-processing pictures, when a better photogrpaher could just have pulled out the JPG or the "convert as shot" option and come up with a better looking image!

regards,
/alan

alan_potter wrote in post #5736195
Actually, it's in many ways the opposite. I worry that I am "just taking" the picture, confident that I can fake up some of the aspects you describe in Lightroom.

Exposure can - to a degree - be corrected. Shading and lighting can be modified. Composition can be improved. So I "just take" photographs without thinking about how to get the best from thepicture there and then - I can always fix it in Lightroom.

I think this means that I spend too much time post-processing pictures, when a better photogrpaher could just have pulled out the JPG or the "convert as shot" option and come up with a better looking image!

regards,
/alan

You enjoy post processing your images, and that's fine. Me, I shoot RAW so that I get the greatest flexibility of the tools available to me in post. Plus, for me, Lightroom removes the whole "RAW conversion" step from the process. But even though I shoot RAW, the photos I'm most pleased about are the ones I don't have to post-process. I think that there are people out there taking tremendous liberties with RAW files, but I'm always trying to do the least I can in post. Or at least using post for fixing things that could not have been done right in-camera.

Alan,
Check out this artical on John Marshall on Canon Professional Network http://http …tent/btl/john_m​arshall.do it make intersting reading.

alan_potter wrote in post #5736195
Actually, it's in many ways the opposite. I worry that I am "just taking" the picture, confident that I can fake up some of the aspects you describe in Lightroom.

Exposure can - to a degree - be corrected. Shading and lighting can be modified. Composition can be improved. So I "just take" photographs without thinking about how to get the best from thepicture there and then - I can always fix it in Lightroom.

I think this means that I spend too much time post-processing pictures, when a better photogrpaher could just have pulled out the JPG or the "convert as shot" option and come up with a better looking image!

regards,
/alan

Poor composition cannot always be improved by cropping (assuming you want to crop away precious resolution), particularly if the photo would have benefited from a different angle, or, for another example, if the flow of the photo would have been better had the shutter snapped a second earlier. If there is any aspect of "getting it right in camera" that is of utmost importance, it is composition. In any event, composition is not a subject directly affected by JPEG or RAW.

Exposure can be manipulated to some degree, but if you lose detail, whether in RAW or JPEG, you lose detail. You still need to expose correctly for RAW, even if defined as "exposing to the right." RAW is no more a corrective agent than, say, a theoretical digital sensor that can capture a dynamic range of 20 stops.

Deciding to shoot an object in sunlight with heavy shadows or under overcast conditions, which reveals broader tones, is a creative decision that can undoubtedly benefit from further post processing (and there is nothing wrong with that) but not one that can be completely reversed, unless you are talking about substantial image manipulation, which is a different issue altogether.

So yes, one can use Gaussian blur to create a shallow depth of field, you can use Photoshop to put in a whole new sky; add shadows; change day to night; rearrange objects; erase distractions; but this has little to do with RAW or JPEG, or for that matter, getting it right in the camera.

Most importantly, if the subject matter is boring, then it is boring---RAW, JPEG, film, holographs…still boring.

Actually, I do understand your point, but to me, the overall issue here appears to transcend the JPEG or RAW debate, but instead centers on the importance of understanding and implementing basic photographic fundamentals. I don't see RAW as an obstruction in this aspect, on the contrary; I have always seen RAW as the higher quality option, not as some crutch.

I also don't see any purity in adjusting for white balance in camera or in Photoshop, especially if it is turns out to be more time consuming to do it correctly in camera. Likewise, adjusting saturation in camera or through Photoshop; does not matter to me, except the photographer has considerably more creative control with Photoshop. As for sharpening, I kept all of my digital masters unsharpened anyway, since sharpening for the web and sharpening for print can differ. If what you seek is what comes straight out of a camera, fine, but as I stated, that is only one aspect of photography. For me, using curves to adjust contrast and tones for monochrome was and is one of the more enjoyable and inspired aspects of photography.

alan_potter wrote in post #5735703
PS mbellot - lovely dance shots. It disappoints me that my daughter has no interest in ballet, and so I have no opportunity to shoot the local dance schools' recitals

Thanks for the kind words, I do it mostly for fun and so the other parents can see what they missed (there are typically 75-100 backstage parent volunteers per show).

Only one (of three) of my girls has an interest in ballet. The other is a tap fanatic and the last is a natural born tumbler (but wants to be a fireman when she grows up).

Given the personalities involved, I would count yourself lucky your daughter isn't interested in ballet - if you get my drift.

I shoot RAW therefore I suck....next.

I shoot RAW because Lightroom doesn't automatically zap my hot and dead pixels on JPEG.

Anyone who thinks that everything should be done in-camera is more than welcome to do so.

Take a step back to the good old film days with your digital camera. Preset your white balance to 5200K and shoot the next 36 shots with that limitation. You may, of course, use screw-in color compensation filters for shade or (gasp) indoors.

Or conversely, preset your white balance to 2600K if you plan on doing indoor shooting. But remember, no changing the white balance for 36 exposures. Too bad if you happen to need an outdoor shot during that time, or an indoor shot with natural window illumination. But then, there's always those screw-in filters...

Digital has allow the photographer's world to expand. Our opinion is to not limit ourselves to only that which was the domain of the past. Shooting raw allows the photographer to best utilize the tools currently available.

And yes, it is composition that matters the most, and post-processing is of very limited value in that area. One should, after all, be a photographer. Not simply a button pressing extension of the camera's processing power.

I guess jpeg shooters do absolutely NO PP whatsoever?

Coming from the P&S jpeg world, I had to at least crop most of my photos to get them to fit into a 4x6 or 8x10 (used a 4:3 P&S). Since I was already there, I would typically tweak things a bit.

Since ACR is tied to PS3 and LR can also be tied to it, the only thing that has changed for me is the name of my file from JPEG to CR2.

If your intention IS NOT to Troll the forum or to inflame people and start a flame war,
Then you must consider an approach that is not designed to do exactly that. (title)

If it is, that is against this forums rules.