The benefits of shooting Raw over Jpegs

[Guy Mancuso]

Let's face it folks of all the masters mentioned above, they were technically masters as well. They knew how to shoot in any condition with any light and get great exposures just guessing at it. Not many talk about there technical abilities but more of there art. This really is not about the art of photography though but more about the readiness to shoot and knowing what you walk into and how to adjust to the situation and conditions at hand . The old masters knew this stuff exteremly well and trust me there were not many surprises when they processed there film , they knew what they had in the can.

 

[David K]

Joan,
You can go a long, long way shooting jpegs. I shoot RAW but a very good (and successful) professional photographer friend of mine has been shooting jpegs for the past ten years or more. I used to tell him he was crazy but it was a tough sell because his jpegs were better than my RAW's I do think that for someone who wants to take it to the next level you need to develop post processing skills. Without those, shooting RAW isn't going to do much for you. There are some great online tutorials which can help you along the way.

 

[Joan]

Thanks everyone, I really appreciate all the thoughts and advice expressed here. You've given me a lot to think about, and I do realize that it's what I want to get out of this that determines the answers to the questions I posed. And, YES, my son is going to be a college student soon, so maybe I can get some academic software deals, great idea!

I initially got into digital photography in order to try to get some good reference photos to use for my watercolor paintings. Now I find I'm really enjoying it a lot for its own sake. So, I am going to try to just take it one step at a time and add a little bit more to my skill set as I go. Rome wasn't built in a day, and I still want get back to my painting -- I've spent 25 years working at that, so I know I can stick to something and persevere.

 

[smokysun]

i can't disagree with anything that's been said. however, these three dvd's a great lesson in the greats:

http://www.amazon.com/Contacts-Vol-...=pd_bbs_2?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1214620964&sr=8-2

each segment is a photographer talking about his or her contact sheets as he or she goes thru them. this includes many of the greats. and for every iconic photo you will find half a dozen (at least) versions.

a book i'm re-reading and can't recommend highly enough:

http://www.amazon.com/Education-Pho...bs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1214621256&sr=8-1

here you will find many more of the great (and lots of others).

to answer guy a little more directly. most of the masters used one camera and one or two kinds of film. they knew their rolliflex/leica/view camera backwards and forwards. and usually with one or two fixed focus lenses. we keep changing our equipment, looking for the camera that will make us better photographers. an embarassment of riches! they had much simpler resources.

wayne
www.pbase.com/wwp

ps. helen those cumulative three years in the big apple wonderful experiences. envy.

pss. sorry to ramble on. one good way of getting a usable, high-density jpeg: load with lightroom, then save as a 16 bit tiff. a 6 meg jpeg ends up a 34 meg tiff.

 

[Terry]

Wow, I saw this thread was starting to buzz but was on my way out the door for a beach weekend. Just sat down and got to read the whole thing. Lots of good thoughts. I was shooting jpegs with compacts for a while and moved to shooting RAW exclusively with the M8 (as we all know how good the jpegs are and how horrific the WB used to be!) I am very far from being a master at PP but I learn a little bit more all the time. I know a lot of people really don't like Lightroom, but that is what I learned on. I've got to give Adobe some credit for putting all the RAW tools out there generally in the correct order to get a good workflow. Now that ACR has a lot of what Lightroom has, Photoshop Elements which includes ACR is a bargain at $80 or about $60 as a student....from what I understand there isn't a whole lot missing from Elements these days.

 

[Terry]

Wayne,
The contacts series is fantastic. I've watched most of the segments and the DVDs were used as part of a class I took at ICP.

Terry

 

[Guy Mancuso]

to answer guy a little more directly. most of the masters used one camera and one or two kinds of film. they knew their rolliflex/leica/view camera backwards and forwards. and usually with one or two fixed focus lenses. we keep changing our equipment, looking for the camera that will make us better photographers. an embarassment of riches! they had much simpler resources.



I agree Wayne we do switch a lot (Guilty) and for newcomers and with less experience this can be very dangerous because you never really get that chance to be to intimidate with a camera and this take time to learn. For me no problem just because of my experience but still sometimes I feel too often. For me I have been chasing MF quality for several years in 35mm and coming up short until recently just buying the darn thing and getting over with it. One reason I like The M8 is because it is a great teaching tool both on the workshops and for folks that have the means but want to learn also. It is a simple camera with few bells and whistles but more important for learning is if you want great images you need to work the camera and get to know that tool real well so you can leave the technical stuff outside the brain and concentrate on the image.

My believe is when you master the tech end and make it simple and easy for you this leaves the energy into creating a image. I do this everyday and to struggle with gear is a big no no . Clients don't pay Pro's to struggle and play games with the gear, they pay us to produce. I like to teach this to the hobbyist and get to know your gear so well that you don't have to think about that end of it. When you free your mind than you free the creative juices to flow. This is one reason I like the M8 because it is simple and you work the camera in the creative side. It's funny most advanced hobbyist and Pro's will turn off more stuff on the Canon's and Nikons than turn on. Just because the camera has it does not mean you have to use it. I would love to see more folks turn some things off on these robots than turn on.

Now taking this back to Raw with the same thoughts . Raw teaches you how to expose and how to work images so when you are out there shooting you know exactly what you can do and know exactly what will get you in trouble. I would like to say look at the big picture of the whole process of shooting and processing and you learn more from that than just shooting a jpeg and posting it on the web. I know many folks just posting on the web is fine and nothing wrong with that it is the level they want to work in but if you want to progress and grow in photography you should learn everything you can and understand it all. This will make you a better shooter more than any gear will. Even after 35 years shooting i wake up everyday hoping to learn more and the day that stops I hope i am in a box. I love to learn and encourage everyone to do the same. That is the fun part of Photography.

 

[Bob Yanal]

A thought-provoking discussion of raw v. jpg:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

A polemical response (and some tips):

http://www.prime-junta.net/pont/How_to/o_RAW_workflow/_RAW_workflow.html

 

[Player]

I don't think Rockwell is anti-RAW, it's just that he perceives his audience to be amateurs/ snapshooters.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Exactly , after reading his stuff sometimes a gun to my head would be a better option. I just can't read the guy at all. But that is me and he will do and say whatever he wants . Free world

 

[Player]

Exactly , after reading his stuff sometimes a gun to my head would be a better option. I just can't read the guy at all. But that is me and he will do and say whatever he wants . Free world

Some of his stuff is pretty entertaining to read, but you gotta take it with a grain of salt. I only resort to Rockwell when I run out of reading material. :sleep006:

 

[Guy Mancuso]

LOL i agree my issue is there is never a flip side of the coin. It's his way or the highway and if you understand that than fine. But he is not giving his readers that option and to me that is short changing them. But i agree read with a grain of salt

 

[smokysun]

hi guy,
your teaching philosophy very sound. i'm sure your students learn a lot from you. looking through your portfolio, i'm blown away by the various situations in which you have to produce technically finished results. you simply couldn't do it without your technical knowledge.
differences arise from intent. someone took beautiful photos of brancusi's sculptures. he hated the pictures. took some himself, bleary, torn, but exactly how he wanted the spirit of his work to be perceived. so an art intent is different from documentary, journalism, advertising, etc.
and the learning curve a lot different for us older folks. kids raised at the breast of computers have a natural ease with the equipment. i just read a recent book, edited by sylvia plachy

http://www.amazon.com/25-Under-Up-C...bs_sr_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1214669857&sr=8-7

these kids coming out of photographic graduate programs can really write about their projects, the quality of the photos outstanding, and the projects themselves various and interesting. that doesn't mean they will ever make a name for themselves, but they're all starting at a level far above myself. (this is documentary photography, by the way.)

for most of us i suspect the simplification you recommend is the only way we can achieve satisfactory results. all this study seems mostly to help us find a focus with which we resonate and have something special to say, a special kind of urgency.

let me quote robert henri (from 'the art spirit'):

"It is useless to study technique in advance of having a motive. Instead of establishing a vast stock of technical tricks, it would be far wiser to develop creative power by constant search for means particular to a motive already in mind, by studying and developing just that technique which you feel the immediate need of, and which alone will serve you for the idea or the emotion which has moved you to expression."

for us older folks time is of the essence. at 25 i had all the time in the world, at 68 i feel time's winged chariot at my heels.

thanks for thoughts.

wayne
www.pbase.com/wwp

 

[Guy Mancuso]

The big thing we have not talked about and most important is having a eye and/or developing a eye. Some have it , some don't but developing one is important. Bottom line as you are alluding too you can have all the tech . ability but if you have no eye your lost and I agree. Some folks just have it no matter what and some are never going to get one. But developing a eye can be done and that is what you work on and as a shooter is developing your eye. But these things do go hand in hand and you need to round yourself out well and have both in your arsenal. There are many many great shooters of our day and some will never process a file and have there techs. do it but all of them know how and know how to get the best out of there shooting and there eye. Just because they have a team to help them does not mean they don't know the tech. side far from it they know it well and they use all that data to there advantage. But I agree you have to have a eye and know how to create. Another thread maybe in order on that one. Honestly that is what I try to teach on the workshops and that is what i am better at than the tech. side. Jack is the genius there.


BTW this is the stuff I love to talk about more than the gear. I wish more folks would bring these kinds of topics to the forum. I would but i talk too much as it is and often feel it is just me starting these things. Please folks this is your home , use it to learn.

 

[Player]

I never believed that the shooter's eye was something that could be taught, which probably explains why teachers seem to stay away from it and focus on the stuff that can be taught, like technique and processing.

Music is the same. You can teach a student music theory and the mechanical techniques, but when it comes to applying that knowledge towards the playing and creation of music, the student is pretty much on his own.

I always thought that some people are just "naturals" when it comes to the arts. And you can pretty much observe that right from the beginning. They just seem to do the right things even when they don't really know what they're doing. They have a feel for it, or a natural talent. How do you teach that?

I think with photography though, you could make a damn good living if you absorbed all the stuff that can be taught, but the creative/ art thing seems to be a birthright.

 

[Terry]

I agree with both sides of this, knowing the technique but also having a motive. On the technique side, it is so much easier when you know the equipment backwards and forwards and you don't have to "think" about your camera settings they just happen as you are looking at the shot you are going to take. Or, if you do need to make a settings change it is fast and instinctual. When this is the case I feel like I am a MUCH better shooter because my concentration is on the subject and not the camera.

 

[Terry]

I agree that naturally some people just have an eye but I also believe that you can with work at it to see and shoot better. I took a class where we needed to shoot at least the equivalent of a roll of film a day. My work at the end of the two month period was much better than when the class began. There is a lot to be said from others giving critiques and helping you see patterns in what you do. It can be very valuable in moving you forward to produce better work. Just by something simple in looking at the contact sheets can be very revealing. How many shots will you atempt at something before giving up? It was wild to see these sorts of patterns in people's work and was awesome if they weren't spending enough time on the subject to see what they got the next time when instructed to not stop at 5 or 6 but try it more ways. So, yes the gift of an eye is great but training can also work.

I never believed that the shooter's eye was something that could be taught, which probably explains why teachers seem to stay away from it and focus on the stuff that can be taught, like technique and processing.

Music is the same. You can teach a student music theory and the mechanical techniques, but when it comes to applying that knowledge towards the playing and creation of music, the student is pretty much on his own.

I always thought that some people are just "naturals" when it comes to the arts. And you can pretty much observe that right from the beginning. They just seem to do the right things even when they don't really know what they're doing. They have a feel for it, or a natural talent. How do you teach that?

I think with photography though, you could make a damn good living if you absorbed all the stuff that can be taught, but the creative/ art thing seems to be a birthright.

 

[smokysun]

one thing we haven't talked about is ambition. how big is it? obviously shakespeare and dante wanted to be the greatest, and they developed the chops. an art teacher once told me he had many students who had much more natural talent than himself but they never did anything with it. oscar wilde said, 'everybody has talent. not many have persistence.'

a case in point. i was walking around the kroller-mueller museum, set in a beautiful dutch park and full of masterpieces: seurat, van gogh, etc. quite something. then, in a darkish hallway, i saw a glass display case of terrible, amateurish paintings. i wondered, 'what the heck?' and looked at the label. they were early van gogh's when he was self-teaching himself to paint. he had worked years for an art dealer. looking at his letters, he always had the eye. but it took time for him to bring it out.

player is right about some people being naturals. they have the potential to start out above everyone else and become masters. few have the drive to make a lifetime of it, often too vulnerable or disliking to spend so much time alone.

 

[Player]

I agree that naturally some people just have an eye but I also believe that you can with work at it to see and shoot better. I took a class where we needed to shoot at least the equivalent of a roll of film a day. My work at the end of the two month period was much better than when the class began. There is a lot to be said from others giving critiques and helping you see patterns in what you do. It can be very valuable in moving you forward to produce better work. Just by something simple in looking at the contact sheets can be very revealing. How many shots will you atempt at something before giving up? It was wild to see these sorts of patterns in people's work and was awesome if they weren't spending enough time on the subject to see what they got the next time when instructed to not stop at 5 or 6 but try it more ways. So, yes the gift of an eye is great but training can also work.

The thing I didn't mention you called me on.

Yes yes yes, absolutely, I too believe that you can improve your eye by practicing, but I also believe that there is a difference between a "practiced eye" and a natural eye.

Forgive me for leaning on the music analogy again, but I've seen guitar players who have literally worked their butts off practicing, and they have molded themselves into very good players, even outstanding players, but there is a stiffness to their playing, and a subtle lack of fluidity, difficult to explain but a musician can recognize it right away. On the other hand, I've seen guitar players who don't go through this rote type of practicing, maybe just spend all their time working on their music, and their playing is effortless and fluid, with a virtuosity you can't be taught. I've seen an 8 year old guitar player that is at a level that some people will never reach in 30 years of studying and practicing, and he's only been playing for two years. He just has it, and there's no denying that some people just have it, and most don't. It proves the old cliche "that life isn't fair." This is so common in music that it isn't even discussed; it's just the way it is, and it's common knowledge.

I'm not sure this is discussed much in photography because the bulk of photographers are not really artists, and they're just trying to create some good pictures, or maybe earn a living, but I believe that photography is an artform as well as a recording medium, and the same laws and trusims that exist for music as an artform, exist for photography as an artform too.

 

[Player]

smokysun, yes, the whole ambition thing is definitely another aspect of this discussion. I've seen where an artform might come so easily to someone that they lose interest. And the people who work so diligently at their chosen art want to kill these people; they just can't understand why.