Why shoot in RAW?

Round and round the argument goes, with nary an end in sight.

Please!!! The question has been answered, and re-answered, and re-answered, ad infinitum.

We are each entitled to use either RAW or JPEG as we see fit. AND, for any reason we see fit.

We are also each entitled to think those who who do not do as we do or think as we think are, at best, idiots. To endlessly argue such things is truly pointless. Let's just leave it at that instead of spinning our wheels in the sand.

20droger wrote in post #9629491
Round and round the argument goes, with nary an end in sight.

Please!!! The question has been answered, and re-answered, and re-answered, ad infinitum.

We are each entitled to use either RAW or JPEG as we see fit. AND, for any reason we see fit.

We are also each entitled to think those who who do not do as we do or think as we think are, at best, idiots. To endlessly argue such things is truly pointless. Let's just leave it at that instead of spinning our wheels in the sand.

Who's arguing? We're having fun, can't you see the smiley faces in posts? Lighten up!

dugcross wrote in post #9629551
Who's arguing? We're having fun, can't you see the smiley faces in posts? Lighten up!

How dare you tell me I'm too heavy!!! Just because I'm a "person of size" doesn't mean you can be rude!

Besides, that's what my doctor tells me! I don't listen to him, either.

20droger wrote in post #9629575
How dare you tell me I'm too heavy!!! Just because I'm a "person of size" doesn't mean you can be rude!

Besides, that's what my doctor tells me! I don't listen to him, either.

Nice! Thanks!

How old are some of u guys?

jonneymendoza wrote in post #9630367
How old are some of u guys?

I'm 46.....why?

DAMphyne wrote in post #9626032
I can't really imagine having 30 or 40 copies of the same image. Nor can I picture the need for multiple edits as you describe.
You can not save the Raw/edited image with out "saving-as", same as saving a jpeg with a different name.

There are indeed many times when multiple edits are necessary for a single image. For example, let's say that the local newspaper wants to run the pic. They are most likely going to use it in a vertical orientation so that it fits in the column. It's a small, local paper, and they don't exactly have personnel who know how to crop the image to fit the column and also apply the crop in such a way as to make a good composition. Plus, they don't edit images at all at the local paper (they don't even have image editing software), so I need to adjust the exposure, WB, highlights, shadows, etc all myself. Also, let's say there is a distracting element in the FG or BG that needs to be cloned out. Ad into the equation the fact that it's going to be printed on newsprint, and I know I'll need to increase saturation and contrast slightly, due to the way an image prints on that particular medium.

Now let's say I'm going to submit the image to a publisher of a high-end magazine. The art director of this particular magazine does not want any editing done to the image, because they have very accomplished graphic designers and top-shelf editing software. So, they simply want the unedited image file in a 16 bit TIFF format, and they want it to be pre-set to 15" by 10" at 300ppi. So, I take the image that I had edited for the newspaper, click on "Revert to RAW", and presto - I have just undone all the adjustments I had done for the newspaper version. There is no copy - just one file of the image on my computer. It was edited a certain way for the newspaper, now it is re-set to the way the magazine wants it. I resize it when exporting and burn to a DVD.

Now, let's say I have a gallery showing coming up in a few weeks, and I want to use the same image for a framed print - let's say a 16 by 20. I need to re-crop it to 4:5 proportions, and re-edit it so that I can make adjustments that will be most suitable for a print. So, I again adjust the levels, WB, highlights, shadows, etc. Also, I need to clone out that FG/BG distraction again. And let's say that I know that the print service I use for prints in the 16 by 20 range always print a little dark, so I need to increase the exposure by about 3/8 of a stop to adjust for that particular print service's process. Ok, so now the same image has been re-edited for a 16x20 print.

Now, I need to submit the image to a company that produces wall calendars, for consideration in one of their upcoming publications. This particular publisher prefers to have all calendar submissions in 11 by 14 proportions. So I need to re-crop the image to these proportions. Also, I know from experience that they like to tweak the images themselves, so I don't do a full edit - just a light edit so that the image looks to be pretty much un-manipulated. This particular company stresses that they don't want the image to be sharpened at all, so if I had done some sharpening for the 16 by 20 print, I need to completely undo that now.

Ok, now my local chamber of commerce wants the image on a CD for use in their advertising. I know that the local chamber advertises primarily on the internet, so I re-edit the image in such a way that it will look best on a computer monitor (which is different than how it will look in print, and requires slightly different adjustments). So I re-edit the image once again, burn it to a CD, and send it off to the chamber.

Now, my local tourism council wants the image for their promotional purposes. They are a different agency than the local chamber of commerce. They have 3 skilled graphic designers working for them, so I don't need a completely edited image, as they prefer to do most of the image editing/preparation themselves. Furthermore, they don't just advertise online, but also publish quite a few print ads - this time, the image will be viewed both online and in print. So, I just do some light tweaking of highlights, shadows, and WB and send it to them. They can micro-adjust each time they use the image in a different way.

I could go on and on and on about this - fact is, there are many, many ways an image can (and will) be used, and each use requires a different editing process to ensure that the image will look it's best in the final product. Hence, the need for the multiple edits I spoke of previously.

I certainly don't want a different copy of the image for every time I use it in a different way. I want just one image file at any given time - one file I can re-edit any way I want, as often as I want - without losing any of the fine detail. I want to be able to print the image out at 20" by 30" - even after editing it 20+ times in 20+ different editing sessions - and have all the detail it had the first time around. Jpeg files won't accomplish that.

^^^^OK

Why would anyone keep editing and saving the same JPEG image? You have the one that came from the camera, keep that one and edit that one only. When you need something different, you go back to the original and edit that one. So you're never going more than two levels.

I'm a RAW fan. But I don't get the argument that you would keep re-saving the same JPEG, degrading it each time. When you use a RAW file and need different types of output you go to the same RAW file each time also.

dugcross wrote in post #9630512
I'm 46.....why?

Young punk!

I can't even remember when I was 46. But then, I can't remember this morning, either.

JeffreyO wrote in post #9630826
Why would anyone keep editing and saving the same JPEG image? You have the one that came from the camera, keep that one and edit that one only. When you need something different, you go back to the original and edit that one. So you're never going more than two levels.
.

Try working in an ad agency. You don't have that privilege when the client sends you the photo to be used in a brochure. 99% of the time they only send you a JPEG. When you get it you make your edits and adjustments and use it. Then 2 months down the road the same client gives you a magazine ad to produce and they tell you to use the same photo. You tell them they need to resend the photo but they don't understand saying you already have the photo and to use it. So you reopen the photo make other adjustments to suit the ad and resave. Then a year down the road, they ask you to do a poster using the same photo. So you go through your files and search and finally the only copy you can find is the one used for the magazine ad. You call the client and tell them that they need to resend the original especially since it's going to be used in a much larger size, they tell you to use the photo they sent you originally, you tell them it's been edited too many times and it's too small. They don't understand and then tell you they don't even have the photo anymore. This can go on and on. I've seen it many, many times before. On top of that you got to figure sometimes the person who originally got the photo to use is sick, vacation or don't even work there anymore so you have no idea where it's at if it even exists in its original form.

Another problem I dealt with in the ad agency is when the client sends you a photo that was obviously formated for the web (low res) and they cannot understand why you can't use that photo on a larger printed piece. They think you're nuts for saying you can't use it and tell you that's all they got. Then the piece prints and they wonder why the photo turned out so crappy.

You tell them up front constantly what kind of photos you have to have to get a decent print and they always send you either low res web formated jpgs or jpgs in general. I rarely get jpgs that are of high enough resolution that I need. A lot of ad agencies don't have the money or resources to keep every photo sent on file from a client. Even when we do keep the photos on file in the various edit forms and they ask for that to be used, guaranteed you end up using the wrong one. Right photo but not edited the way they saw it in the brochure that printed.

20droger wrote in post #9631333
Young punk!

I can't even remember when I was 46. But then, I can't remember this morning, either.

Thanks, I was thinking I was old until I saw this post. Made my day! It's been a long time since I was called a young punk.

dugcross wrote in post #9631564
Thanks, I was thinking I was old until I saw this post. Made my day! It's been a long time since I was called a young punk.

Well, I was going to say "Young whippersnapper," but thought that might be a bit dated.

Then I thought of "long-haired hippie freak," but I thought that might be a bit harsh.

So I settled on "young punk."

Take that, you long-haired young hippie whippersnapper punk freak.

dugcross wrote in post #9631556
Try working in an ad agency. You don't have that privilege when the client sends you the photo to be used in a brochure. 99% of the time they only send you a JPEG. When you get it you make your edits and adjustments and use it. Then 2 months down the road the same client gives you a magazine ad to produce and they tell you to use the same photo. You tell them they need to resend the photo but they don't understand saying you already have the photo and to use it. So you reopen the photo make other adjustments to suit the ad and resave. Then a year down the road, they ask you to do a poster using the same photo. So you go through your files and search and finally the only copy you can find is the one used for the magazine ad. You call the client and tell them that they need to resend the original especially since it's going to be used in a much larger size, they tell you to use the photo they sent you originally, you tell them it's been edited too many times and it's too small. They don't understand and then tell you they don't even have the photo anymore. This can go on and on. I've seen it many, many times before. On top of that you got to figure sometimes the person who originally got the photo to use is sick, vacation or don't even work there anymore so you have no idea where it's at if it even exists in its original form.

Another problem I dealt with in the ad agency is when the client sends you a photo that was obviously formated for the web (low res) and they cannot understand why you can't use that photo on a larger printed piece. They think you're nuts for saying you can't use it and tell you that's all they got. Then the piece prints and they wonder why the photo turned out so crappy.

You tell them up front constantly what kind of photos you have to have to get a decent print and they always send you either low res web formated jpgs or jpgs in general. I rarely get jpgs that are of high enough resolution that I need. A lot of ad agencies don't have the money or resources to keep every photo sent on file from a client. Even when we do keep the photos on file in the various edit forms and they ask for that to be used, guaranteed you end up using the wrong one. Right photo but not edited the way they saw it in the brochure that printed.

Fits right into my business philosophy.

The customer is always right. Misinformed, perhaps. Stupid, ignorant, asinine, and downright idiotic. But always right!

dugcross wrote in post #9631556
Try working in an ad agency. You don't have that privilege when the client sends you the photo to be used in a brochure. 99% of the time they only send you a JPEG. When you get it you make your edits and adjustments and use it. Then 2 months down the road the same client gives you a magazine ad to produce and they tell you to use the same photo. You tell them they need to resend the photo but they don't understand saying you already have the photo and to use it. So you reopen the photo make other adjustments to suit the ad and resave. Then a year down the road, they ask you to do a poster using the same photo. So you go through your files and search and finally the only copy you can find is the one used for the magazine ad. You call the client and tell them that they need to resend the original especially since it's going to be used in a much larger size, they tell you to use the photo they sent you originally, you tell them it's been edited too many times and it's too small. They don't understand and then tell you they don't even have the photo anymore. This can go on and on. I've seen it many, many times before. On top of that you got to figure sometimes the person who originally got the photo to use is sick, vacation or don't even work there anymore so you have no idea where it's at if it even exists in its original form.

Another problem I dealt with in the ad agency is when the client sends you a photo that was obviously formated for the web (low res) and they cannot understand why you can't use that photo on a larger printed piece. They think you're nuts for saying you can't use it and tell you that's all they got. Then the piece prints and they wonder why the photo turned out so crappy.

You tell them up front constantly what kind of photos you have to have to get a decent print and they always send you either low res web formated jpgs or jpgs in general. I rarely get jpgs that are of high enough resolution that I need. A lot of ad agencies don't have the money or resources to keep every photo sent on file from a client. Even when we do keep the photos on file in the various edit forms and they ask for that to be used, guaranteed you end up using the wrong one. Right photo but not edited the way they saw it in the brochure that printed.

If they sent you the original file, and you're making changes to the original, that's your own fault - maybe it's the archiving guy in me (I work in the optical storage business, and have Printing customers that archive ALL source files from every customer) - but you should get proper archiving for this sort of thing. It doesn't seem professional when you have to ask for something twice.

They are completely correct to assume you have the file already - they already sent it! Why did you edit the original?

And thanks, Tom for specifying dimensions along with "300dpi" - I love it when people say "I need that image in higher resolution, at least 300dpi!", without specifying dimensions.

</rant>

JPEG CAN be an original, as long as it's not modified. I don't know any silly program that would re-save a file with no changes made, let alone a person that would open it up, do nothing, and then save.
I use ACDSee, and it keeps originals of every JPEG image that I edit, so I can edit something tons of times, and have only a single recompression happening. The saving causes a loss of quality argument is valid, but only for those that don't know what they're doing.