The benefits of shooting Raw over Jpegs

[Player]

Jono, I respect your opinion, but I can see that we fundamentally disagree. And no need for me to rehash what I already said.

Just to add about Van Gogh, I believe that Vincent's brother, Theo, was an art dealer who had no luck selling Vincent's paintings. Vincent's work wasn't recognized until enough time had elapsed for it to be appreciated. I think Vincent was ahead of his time, very common among great artists.

And no, there's nothing wrong with someone trying to sell an artist's work, which is much different than the artist himself slanting his art to pander to an audience.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Joan you need to find a avenue that you can do that. It does complete you.

 

[Player]

Well I am still a firm believer in pushing yourself no matter if the public wants it or not. One must feed the soul come hell or high water. If they happen to like it great but keep doing it even if they don't. Got to satisfy your heart, otherwise myself i would just be a production shooter and not be here. LOL

This forum and the workshops help feed my soul a lot.

Guess we are a little OT . But please continue this is GREAT stuff and never want to see us stop great stuff EVER

Guy, I always wanted to tell you that the kindness and good spirit shown on your site is a direct reflection of you and Jack. We've all experienced websites that are hostile and downright rude, mostly because the operators don't care. You've tried to create a friendly, productive, and generous environment here that is a direct reflection of you. And you work to maintain that atmosphere by generously giving your time and sharing your wisdom. I can count on one hand the number of sites that even approach those ideals.

It's pretty amazing because sometimes the issues discussed are very sensitive, and the easy road to take is to fly off the handle and hurl personal insults, but the fact that everyone knows that that behavior will not be tolerated, order is maintained, but the operator has to sincerely care, and your caring is contagious.

Since Joan expressed her appreciation, I felt it was appropriate to express mine. Thankyou!

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Thank you. Jack and I plus our moderators work hard to bring that kind of forum to you all, the big difference is we are here all the time to try and make it better everyday. We have had our bumps along the way but we try hard and the folks that are here and posting seem to be happy here and made it there home. But the bottom line it is about the forum members and what they want out of this place. I know some folks are sensitive to certain things and you don't always know what they are and with 1000 members you just don't know how they will take things. I know some of us including myself more than anyone say the wrong thing sometimes. Folks just need to know when to ignore some things also and that is the hard part. No one says the right things all the time and folks are free to express themselves as they should but sometimes you just can't take every comment serious or misread it also. I have been on many forums and been hurled bricks at me, sometimes you lose it and sometimes you just need ignore it but folks that take there ball and go play somewhere else makes no sense to me. There just hurting themselves.

As our friend Marc says:
Horses for courses

 

[Player]

Just to add, I know I'm on probation here, having recently appeared here regularly, and now all-of-a-sudden posting frequently, but even so, I still feel welcome even though I haven't "paid my dues." I appreciate everyone tolerating my sometimes abrasive and egocentric communication style, and not just dismissing me out-of-hand.

Guy, I've had a lot of trouble at other websites because I seem to come off as arrogant and opinionated, and most sites would have been trying to drive me away by now, but it seems I'm being tolerated and given a chance, so I'm grateful. I'd love to have a website I could come to and feel welcome, despite my flaws.

Just an addendum to the post above, and probably unnecessay.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Well no one is on probation and everyone is very welcome here posting or not and new or old on the forum. Being opinionated is great actually so never worry about that, I have a ton of opinions myself . LOL

The only real key here is respect each other but the biggest joy is making friends here. Other than that have fun and I say that for everyone.

Okay let's get back to our topic at hand . This thread has gone in many directions but let's not stop. Threads like this are golden

 

[Player]

Thanks guy! I think I've always been respectful at every site, but just my opinions have been enough to sink my ship. lol

And yes, back to the regularly scheduled programming. Thanks!

 

[jonoslack]

Jono, I respect your opinion, but I can see that we fundamentally disagree. And no need for me to rehash what I already said.

Just to add about Van Gogh, I believe that Vincent's brother, Theo, was an art dealer who had no luck selling Vincent's paintings. Vincent's work wasn't recognized until enough time had elapsed for it to be appreciated. I think Vincent was ahead of his time, very common among great artists.

And no, there's nothing wrong with someone trying to sell an artist's work, which is much different than the artist himself slanting his art to pander to an audience.

I'm not sure we disagree that much.
I think there are so many different situations that it's tough to draw generalised conclusions.
As far as slanting work to pander to an audience, a considerable part of any art is about communication (although, as we both agree, this isn't always the case). However, if one's art is so left field that nobody likes it enough to participate, then communication becomes difficult!

We are not all Van Gogh's, and we will not all be discovered and appreciated after our deaths, and possibly it's better consider that when deciding how 'difficult' one chooses to be.

But I wasn't really talking about slanting the 'art', but about slanting one's presentation and tactics to maximise exposure, and I think that's completely valid.

After all, starving to death in a garret does NOT add to the value of our art (although it may be a very useful sales asset to the dealer who makes a fortune out of it later!)

 

[Bob Yanal]

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

Hmmm. I think you have a "my way or the highway" attitude as well.

The reason I mentioned Rockwell's discussion of raw and jpg is that this thread that you started has no such discussion.

I also mentioned a url that has a response to Rockwell. Also, far more information than has been presented in this thread so far.

 

[Player]

I'm not sure we disagree that much.
I think there are so many different situations that it's tough to draw generalised conclusions.
As far as slanting work to pander to an audience, a considerable part of any art is about communication (although, as we both agree, this isn't always the case). However, if one's art is so left field that nobody likes it enough to participate, then communication becomes difficult!

We are not all Van Gogh's, and we will not all be discovered and appreciated after our deaths, and possibly it's better consider that when deciding how 'difficult' one chooses to be.

But I wasn't really talking about slanting the 'art', but about slanting one's presentation and tactics to maximise exposure, and I think that's completely valid.

After all, starving to death in a garret does NOT add to the value of our art (although it may be a very useful sales asset to the dealer who makes a fortune out of it later!)

You know Jono, I was thinking about what you said, and it seems to be more or less a semantical disagreement more than anything, so I regretted saying that we fundamentally disagree. Not really at all.

I see your point about slanting one's "presentation and tactics" and not meaning slanting the art itself. This is what marketers do, and if an artist wants exposure he needs a marketer. Chances are that most artists aren't up to the task themselves.

One area where we may part ways is that I always like to say "that of course artists have to eat, but what does that have to do with art"? I don't agree with putting the onus on art to provide food and sustenance. If it does put food on the table and a roof over your head, then that's a tremendous gift and a bonus, but it should never be the responsibilty of one's art to provide that. Maybe it will, maybe it won't, but either way it's a separate issue, apart from art.

 

[Player]

Hmmm. I think you have a "my way or the highway" attitude as well.

The reason I mentioned Rockwell's discussion of raw and jpg is that this thread that you started has no such discussion.

I also mentioned a url that has a response to Rockwell. Also, far more information than has been presented in this thread so far.

Bob, I think it's because it's pretty much understood by everyone that to get the most out of one's photography, from a technical standpoint, you must shoot RAW. And Rockwell understands that, even though he never really lets on to his readers, except subtlely, by saying things like "if you have to ask, just shoot jpeg."

Rockwell is providing a useful function by bringing would-be photographers into the fold, and by not scaring them off with the expense and complexity of shooting RAW. His attitude is that if you need to shoot RAW, you know who you are. He's basically handholding the uninitiated and encouraging them to not give up by just keeping things as simple as possible. He knows that if his readers stick with it, they'll eventually find their way to RAW, and have the confidence to pursue it after having been successful with jpegs.

What more is there to say about Rockwell?

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Hmmm. I think you have a "my way or the highway" attitude as well.

The reason I mentioned Rockwell's discussion of raw and jpg is that this thread that you started has no such discussion.

I also mentioned a url that has a response to Rockwell. Also, far more information than has been presented in this thread so far.

Bob looks like the thread changed early on and it really did not get discussed in detail.

Bob the my way or the highway is something I don't understand at all since i never even talked about it in the first place, I let the members talk about it. So please tell me how that relates to me.

 

[Player]

Bob looks like the thread changed early on and it really did not get discussed in detail.

Bob the my way or the highway is something I don't understand at all since i never even talked about it in the first place, I let the members talk about it. So please tell me how that relates to me.

See that Guy, you can get into conflicts even when you didn't say anything wrong. lol Forums are tricky I tell ya. :bugeyes:

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Just so you know this was my first post.


This came up in the small sensor forum and instead of telling folks Raw is better . I think we should explain the benefits of raw first and why overall it is better to start there than shooting jpeg only. I'm actually surprised this topic has not been talked about. I know in the past this was one of the bigger hot topics on forums and many debates over this. I think for folks new into digital we should revisit this. I talk too much so i give this a forum member challenge.

 

[smokysun]

to me all this is relevant because: raw vs. jpeg is really a question about quality, the kind of polish (or lack thereof) for a particular kind of work.

work that requires high technical results would probably benefit from raw.

but, for example, photojournalists tend to shoot jpegs cause they have to produce fast and the files (small) e-mailed.

wedding photographers would naturally shoot raw.

however, the comment 'my professional friend's jpegs are better than my raw' really hits home. in many kinds of work and art roughness becomes a virtue, or perhaps a desire, to defeat and avoid slickness.

ah, money, money, money. i hate to be a naysayer. shakespeare worked for money. he kept changing his kind of stories to please the public and the queen/king and their changing tastes. (james I liked ghost stories so shakespeare wrote hamlet and macbeth). he retired at 51 and didn't even collect his plays. the first folio put together by friends after his death.

van gogh's career lasted ten years. picasso poor during the first ten of his and then he hit it big. van gogh became a big influence and name not long after his death. poverty did get him, yet it was probably the lead in the paint he licked off his brushes that drove him to despair.

as for encouraging the talented to be artists, a therapist friend says people generally much happier in the mainstream. supporting play and creativity is one thing. being a pro is another. unless a person really has the gifts to compete in the marketplace and the necessary craft skills, it's better, i think to have it be a hobby and an appreciation.

in my experience: artists generally take a vow of monastic poverty and find a way to make a living outside art, something that leaves them free from the market.

on the other hand, shakespeare had the popular touch and i'm sure loved buying his family a coat of arms!

so, raw or jpeg, do you like to cook or have your food cooked for you? and if the latter, you can always season it to your taste.

wayne
www.pbase.com/wwp

ps. a history of shakespeare and making a living: http://www.amazon.com/Shakespeare-L...bs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1214792711&sr=1-2

 

[Player]

Nice post Wayne, very thoughtful.

Rockwell says, "if you're shooting thousands of images a day, shoot jpeg." Read between the lines.

I don't think it's a question of whether or not you should shoot jpegs, but more a question of "can you shoot RAW."

 

[Guy Mancuso]

The big differences when working with in camera jpegs are several. First you are relying on the OEM's firmware and algorithms to make a judgement call on how a file should be processed with Sharpness, color gamut , color space, contrast, noise,compression etc etc. Now be it right, wrong or indifferent with what they are doing you are basically stuck with what they provide. Some do a better job at this than others. Some of the bigger issues is it is 8 bit and not 12,14 or 16 which shooting Raw provides. So right off the bat you are losing color bit. Think of it as using a box of crayons with only 32 colors instead of one that has a 128 colors. Than you most likely will be shooting SRGB and not a wider gamut of color. So coming out of the camera the files is handicapped right from the start. Shooting raw none of these are a issue and your at a state of nothing being applied to the file. Basically you have all the raw food to make a nice chicken noodle soup sitting on the table , than you add all the ingredients to make it homemade. Also you are starting with a 12,14 or 16 bit file depending on what the OEM is providing to that camera, than you are working in a much larger color gamut , your box of crayon colors is much bigger. Than you have much more control of the files since it is not limited by these factors. Than you add you options like sharpness, color tweaking and WB , contrast control such as holding back the highlights so they will not blow than opening up the shadows to show more detail. Basically you have so much control over the raw file that you can do a lot more for it. In camera jpegs files basically stick you with something right out of the camera you can't really add to. You can change only a small number of things but it will never be a wide gamut color file and will never have the color depth and also the ability to really control the file .

Now some thing in camera you can do is turn off let's say sharpness. Well if you think about it what would be the point you than would have to add it later, well that is what your doing with raw so why bother in certain ways to even shoot like this.

Now some folks have to shoot jpegs they simply have no choice because of time limits and such but they should be taken the time to setting up there camera correctly with regards to WB and such. This way at least they can get really close to a good looking file to FTP over the internet to the editors and such. Here is the real issue if you only shoot jpeg than you simply can't go back and make the file even better. For folks that want to shoot jpeg and have the time later than shoot both and buy a camera that gives you that option. This way if you just want to e-mail or post to the web quickly you can and than when time allows or after editing you want to work on the file you can.

Now I shoot raw only but after I process all my raws than i run a action in photoshop after i done all the corrections i want and such i will convert to 8 bit, srgb and make jpegs for a client for the web and e-mail reasons and provide both a jpeg and a master Tif file that is ready for press for magazines or whatever the need maybe. But now my jpegs are corrected and worked on and they have the benefit of being corrected by me.

 

[Player]

Awesome Guy, I never could have explained it that well and that thorough. That's a textbook explanation, worthy of printing-out and filing away for future reference.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Thanks i maybe off on a few small details but hopefully that helps explain it better , Only on my first espresso. Now just a small case in point . I own a MF back and system and I am pretty sure there is not one back from the OEM's that even provide a in camera jpeg. Now that says something but actually most of us would not mind it to have small files to upload to a art director as we shoot sometimes if they are somewhere else. No question jpeg has a place in photography and all of us use them to some degree but here simply is no substitute to a raw file to get the best you can out of the file and on top of that some raw processors handle the files better than others. The key here is just knowing your options, not everyone wants to be at this level of control and honestly some in camera jpegs look great no question but you immediately lose all that control if you do not have a raw file. That is something that folks need to understand. There is a big downside and that never gets explained.

 

[Player]

Guy, as you said "not everyone wants to be at this level of control" reminds me of the film days. How many photographers just brought their film to the local 1-hour Photo and went happily on their way. On the other hand, myself included, some folks went through the trouble of building their own darkrooms and processing themselves. It's true that many pro photographers had labs process and print for them, but these were usually custom pro labs, under the strict direction of the photographer, so it's always been about quality and control for the serious photographer.