Just a thought on Raw: Exception or the Rule ...

I'm a newbie to the forum. But as I read the various posts, it seems that with many of the posters RAW is a part of the photographic process and they are counting on RAW munipulation for every photograph they take, instead of, RAW as a security blanket should a photo need to be saved from bad exposure.

Maybe I'm kinda old school. My first camera had auto nothing. No autofocus, no predetermine modes, and not even any exposure features. I had to learn "photography" without technical features. I think that was an asset. If I need to I can access the right exposure settings without my camera's gagets (except the autofocus.. blind as a bat now). Plus, Im a computer networking geek by trade, and I have no desire to spend MORE time in front of my computer.

I didnt mean to offend anyone, but I think the art of photography should mostly be in the camera and the eye of the photographer, not the post processing. I'll be quiet now.

I luv my 20D.

kjonnnn wrote:
I'm a newbie to the forum. But as I read the various posts, it seems that with many of the posters RAW is a part of the photographic process and they are counting on RAW munipulation for every photograph they take, instead of, RAW as a security blanket should a photo need to be saved from bad exposure.

Maybe I'm kinda old school. My first camera had auto nothing. No autofocus, no predetermine modes, and not even any exposure features. I had to learn "photography" without technical features. I think that was an asset. If I need to I can access the right exposure settings without my camera's gagets (except the autofocus.. blind as a bat now). Plus, Im a computer networking geek by trade, and I have no desire to spend MORE time in front of my computer.

I didnt mean to offend anyone, but I think the art of photography should mostly be in the camera and the eye of the photographer, not the post processing. I'll be quiet now.

I luv my 20D.

RAW can compensate for many mistakes, but the real reason people shoot in that format is that it puts the whole process in your hands. It takes away all the "new fangled" digital camera features that you rightfully claim should be in the hands of the photographer. It's not working against your beliefs, it's returning the power to you.

Jim

This is an interesting debate.

I have always wanted to get the image right in the camera, and I am not happy unless I have. But sometimes we have to push the envelope and do stuff we know that be brougt out in the processing. FIlm users have been doing that for years. Push processing, dodging and burning are just a couple of basing tricks.

I'm a RAW shooter. Personally I have never been happy with the jpeg setting in camera, they never seem to produce the look I am after. I like to be in control of my images. I like to be able to use custom white balance during post processing, so I take a few WB frames thoughout the shoot and use those - adjusting the colours to my taste if need be.

DSLR's generally need some degree of post processing to get the images right, how much depends on each image.

Out of interest, with film how much of your photography was on negative film, then sent off or taken to the printing lab?

You certainly have a right to your opinion, and if you choose to shun post processing, that's your choice and it's fine with me.

But I would point out that back in the film era (you know, when dinosaurs roamed the Earth, in their pre-petroleum state), fine tuning and manipulation (burning in, dodging, contrast control, toning, pushing, pulling, cropping, etc.) was common in the darkroom. While exceptions existed (primarily, images so striking due to their subject matter that technical perfection was all but unimportant), a very significant percentage of the photographic masterpieces of those long ago days were in part the result of many hours of darkroom work. (The example most often trotted out at this point are the works of Ansel Adams, but he was scarcely the only example of a photographer who believed that masterpieces were made or ruined in the darkroom.)

I see no real reason why this should suddenly cease to be the case, now that the image is captured by a CCD or CMOS instead of a piece of film.

Can post processing be overdone? Sure it can. But the fact that some 14 year old can spend a little time with Photoshop and give Abraham Lincoln a purple mohawk shouldn't cause one to reject all post processing.

I'm not knocking RAW, its a great new tool. My point was more concerning the expectation that raw munipulation is going to be used for each photo as part of the routine. I've only had my 20D a few weeks, but when I snap a pic, my mindset at that moment is not about the post processing, but was the image RIGHT at the moment I pushed the shutter. When I used film, I didnt count on fixing my images in the print process.

Its sort of like this, if you're old enough to remember typewriters. Computers have made up sloppy typists. With a typewriter, there's no spelll check, grammar check, backspace or delete. Get it right the first time, or retype the page.

I guess my point was that it seems alot of people are DEPENDING on RAW to save EVERY pic, ... that they dont have to worry about skillfully taking the unprocessed pic.

Oh, man, do I ever agree with that. Then again, I learned typing on a manual typewriter, and noticed that using an electric led to sloppy typing. (Heck, I remember when auto-focus in cameras was criticized for leading to slopping focusing. And in camera metering was opposed by many out of fear it would lead to sloppy exposure metering. Le plus ca change, eh?)

But back to the post processing thing -

It's a tool, and a potentially highly useful tool. What it isn't (or at least shouldn't be) is a magical fix for mistakes that shouldn't have been made in the first place. (At least most of the time. Fixing the occasional stupid mistake is a forgiveable sin.)

For example, there are things which sometimes cannot be readily controlled in camera. There are scenes with dynamic range greater than the camera can capture, and no way to use flash or reflectors to tame things. Using post processing to finesse such an image doesn't strike me as a misuse of the tool.

Ultimately, I suppose I care mostly about the final result. If I see a picture that works, I don't much care whether it was produced via 2 seconds of thought at the scene and 6 hours of work in Photoshop, or via 6 hours of thought at the scene and 2 seconds of work in Photoshop. Although personally, I prefer to minimize the need for post processing to the greatest extent practical, when it comes to my own work. For both philosopical and practical reasons.

Don't forget you don't get 12-bit color depth with JPEG.

In all candor, I'm an inexperienced amateur with marginal skills at best. "Tweaking" the exposure, white balance and composition with a raw converter, and an occasional minor rotation to level the horizon, make me look halfway competant!

I think we all realize that the best pictures are the ones we got "right" when we snapped the shutter. Cropping reduces sharpness, increasing exposure increases noise. Blown-out highlights can't be recovered. I don't take any less care when I'm shooting just because I know I can make certain improvements later. Heck, getting it right with the camera saves time, if nothing else.
On the other hand, in-camera metering systems have their limitations, and always will. The ability to make exposure adjustments before printing results in more good pictures, which is what we're all after.

kjonnnn wrote:
I'm a newbie to the forum. But as I read the various posts, it seems that with many of the posters RAW is a part of the photographic process and they are counting on RAW munipulation for every photograph they take, instead of, RAW as a security blanket should a photo need to be saved from bad exposure.

Maybe I'm kinda old school. My first camera had auto nothing. No autofocus, no predetermine modes, and not even any exposure features. I had to learn "photography" without technical features. I think that was an asset. If I need to I can access the right exposure settings without my camera's gagets (except the autofocus.. blind as a bat now). Plus, Im a computer networking geek by trade, and I have no desire to spend MORE time in front of my computer.

I didnt mean to offend anyone, but I think the art of photography should mostly be in the camera and the eye of the photographer, not the post processing. I'll be quiet now.

I luv my 20D.

Basically, all images taken with a digital camera needs to be processed before we can view the "final" picture, whether the processing is done by the camera or by you. So, the real question is, are you willing to settle for and be satisfied with what the camera gives you or would you rather have full control over it? Just because the image came out of the camera as a JPEG file doesn't mean that that's how it really was. After all, don't you have the option of setting the parameters anyway you wish with the digital camera?

The same question has been and still is being asked even when shooting film. Do you take your film to a local lab or drugstore for processing or would you rather do it in your own darkroom yourself. The difference between film and digital is that self processing is much more easily achieved with digital compared to film since not everybody can afford to or want to be bothered with having to set up their own darkroom whereas with digital a lot more people have easy access to a computer.

To RAW or not to RAW...

So much has been said about this subject.
So little has been resolved.
Lets just say that if going on the computer to make few tweak will kill you then don't.
Shoot in JPEG
Better yet get yourself one of those cute little P&S that fits in your pocket and one of those personal photolab printer and print to your heart's contend.
There are those of us that take pride in what they shoot and like the idea that they are in control.
It is part of being creative.
I'm not a very good photographer nor am I a good artist, at least in my mind.
But, that doesn't stop me from enjoying photography or drawing.
Its just something I like to do.
The other thing that I like to do is work on MY COMPUTER, not good at that either.
But if your disfunction is being in front of the computer all day then maybe its time change career.
Its apparent that you don't enjoy your job that cause such bitter taste in going on the computer.

My 0.02 worth of my MHO

I am also one of the old school who grew up on film and stop baths. I see no fundamental difference between digital and film processing. RAW is far more of a true digital negative, unprocessed compared to a jpg where the result has already been processed by the in-camera algorithms. In a darkroom you picked paper grade, develop time etc etc right the way through to cross processing. What is the difference to doing the same but in a digital environment?

I shoot RAW all the time and it has nothing to do with "DEPENDING on RAW to save EVERY pic". Rather I shoot RAW to get the 16 bit TIFFS that my camrea is capable of delivering. Shooting jpg you are allowing the camera to throw away 1/2 the color information. And being in software you should know that is improving all the time, if you shoot RAW you will be able to take advantage of any advances in RAW converter technology in the future.

I think the entire premise of your post is flawed. You may see RAW as an option only for those who can't get it right the first time. That is not the majority by any stretch. Most of us are just quality nuts who will go to great lengths to get the best possible picture we are capable of, is that so different than you?

well im still a jpeg guy i will give raw a go again sometime but i try and set the parameters up so the image is almost how i want it or should i say how i see it from out of the camera, i just bought a 1DMK2 as it offers more control over parameters settings.
im getting very close to making it a point and shoot type camera and thats just what i want .
yes i still have to tweak the shots in PS but they are close imho to start with .
i did try raw once and everything looked flat with low contrast and took an age to sort out .
i think its a case of each to there own raw or jpeg.
Rob.

WOW .. I was just thinking out loud. Ive taken most of my pics in RAW, but not because I get the options of Fixing it my pic. Most times Im satisfied with what i took, give or take a tweak here and there. For me photography is about getting out the house and taken photos. Not spending MORE time in front of a machine trying get the perfect image. After all, the best photos come from the photographers inate talent creativity not technical percision. Sorry I brought it up. Either you can sing or your can't.

Well.. I see several differences...

1) Your wife/fiancee/mother (depend on age) does not get nervous about you "possessing" the bathroom for half a day or so, no matter how many bathrooms there are in the house.

2) Save a lot of money in garments that do no get spilled with acids

3) Work in a well illuminated environment and comfortably seated

4) You can smoke while "developing" RAW files

5) You can answer the phone while working without covering up everything and get out of the bath/darkroom. And if your cellphone rings you do not have all the paper/film clouded by the light of the phone.

6) A mistake is just a bunch of bytes and not expensive paper/chemicals/film.

I have other examples, but I believe that you've got the point: I love digital darkroom !!!