Post processing age old debate!

AC016

Senior Member
I was given this statement on an aviation forum that i am part of: "A good photographer always shoots RAW". I responded by saying that, "...those are fighting words!" and just went on to explain to him that i just have no interest in PP and people should shoot in a manner that makes them happy. If they want to get involved with PP, good for them. But they should not do it thinking that it makes them a better photographer or because "it's jsut the thing to do" if you want to be a photographer. Anyhow, all i can do is chuckle and move on. In conclusion: each to their own.
 

stmv

Senior Member
Each their own, Personally, I shoot in dual mode, and first start my edits in JPEG since the files are smaller/easier. The Raw format makes it easier to correct color balance, temperature, and perhaps less intrusive sharpening, but if the shot was done well, than often the JPEG is already a great starting point.

Cameras are not perfect, and frankly cannot alway match the full ability of our eyes. So, my view is to start with a quality product in the camera, if the product of the camera meets your needs/likes, than fine,, stop there, but if you find corrections that need to be made such as some local area dodging/burning, and or further adjustments in saturation/contrast or perhaps dust spots, etc than most shots can benefit from post processing.

If I really like a photo, I'll go back to the raw source and see if I can improve over the JPEG, most of the time yes, sometimes nope.

For me, the digital age has freed the color photographer from the tyranny of the local print shop or some far away land where what was done to your image was at the mercy of the operator. Now, we have fantastic control from the pre moment of setting the infinite settings of the camera, to the processing of the image, to the profile of the printer, to the final product on the screen and or printed medium.

Truly a great age.
 

TedG954

Senior Member
Here's my theory, and mind you, it's my personal opinion.

If you and I both have D5100 cameras, and we both set the camera on AUTO, aim at the exact same focal point, our pictures should turn out identical. They may be beautiful and precise, but they are identical. Where's the "art"? You can manipulate the camera to make your photo "look" different, but that's my point.

With post-processing comes the art. Manipulating the camera is just pre-processing. I have more options with the post work.

How I see a scene is different than how you see a scene. How I manipulate my results will be different than yours. In 99.9% of my photos, I can not remember exactly what I did in post-processing. I like that. I don't want a photo that is easily duplicated. I like the one-of-a-kind sense of art.

With a good camera and good post-processing, I can make a photo look like the painting I could never paint. I can create the mix of results that I could never do with a brush or pen.

A mountain will still be a mountain tomorrow. Why would I prefer to look at a photo over looking directly at the mountain (vacation pics excepted)? But, if I manipulate that mountain and how the light reflects, or the intensity of the clouds, I make that mountain personal and a view that is one-of-a-kind, a view that can only be experienced by looking at my photo.

This isn't an argument, it is just an explanation of how I see my photography results. Be sure to read my signature line. :)
 

AC016

Senior Member
Here's my theory, and mind you, it's my personal opinion.

If you and I both have D5100 cameras, and we both set the camera on AUTO, aim at the exact same focal point, our pictures should turn out identical. They may be beautiful and precise, but they are identical. Where's the "art"? You can manipulate the camera to make your photo "look" different, but that's my point.

With post-processing comes the art. Manipulating the camera is just pre-processing. I have more options with the post work.

How I see a scene is different than how you see a scene. How I manipulate my results will be different than yours. In 99.9% of my photos, I can not remember exactly what I did in post-processing. I like that. I don't want a photo that is easily duplicated. I like the one-of-a-kind sense of art.

With a good camera and good post-processing, I can make a photo look like the painting I could never paint. I can create the mix of results that I could never do with a brush or pen.

A mountain will still be a mountain tomorrow. Why would I prefer to look at a photo over looking directly at the mountain (vacation pics excepted)? But, if I manipulate that mountain and how the light reflects, or the intensity of the clouds, I make that mountain personal and a view that is one-of-a-kind, a view that can only be experienced by looking at my photo.

This isn't an argument, it is just an explanation of how I see my photography results. Be sure to read my signature line. :)

Nice way of putting it. In the end, it's different strokes for different folks.
 

Dave_W

The Dude
I always use RAW, no question about it. Not because I have any love for PP but because I detest randomly throwing away data. The conversion from RAW to JPEG results in 3/4 of the information being tossed in the trash can. I simply do not trust the algorithm to know what to toss out and what to keep. This is not meant as a flame or anything (is the term "flame" still used?) but shooting in JPEG only is akin to turning your fine instrument into the worlds most expensive point and shoot. And if it's the time issue that you don't like about PP, you can automate it to spit out a JPEG but the key to shooting in RAW is that you still have all the data preserved so if you want to go back and access it, it will still be there.
 

AC016

Senior Member
This is not meant as a flame or anything (is the term "flame" still used?) but shooting in JPEG only is akin to turning your fine instrument into the worlds most expensive point and shoot.
Well, atleast you make me laugh, lol. Jpeg, RAW, they are just file formats, one being more "malleable" than the other. I dont know how you can associate a file format to the value or usefulness of your equipment. I would agree with you if you said that leaving your DSLR in Auto is akin to turning it into a P&S, but i would go no further than that. Are not all cameras "point and shoot"? For, if we did not point and shoot, we would not take pictures. Again, they are just file formats and each serves it's purpose for the prospective photog. It's a bit snobish to draw a line in the sand and say that the only proper and useful way to use a DSLR, is to shoot in RAW. I am sorry, but it's laughable.
 

Dave_W

The Dude
Well, if you don't mind gathering data only to throw it away seconds later, then I say go ahead and shoot JPEG only. But I guarantee you some day you'll want to make meaningful changes to your images and you'll find JPEG's produces so much posterization that you'll wish you had the RAW file handy. But hey, it's your dime so all I gotta say is "rock on"!
 

AC016

Senior Member
Well, if you don't mind gathering data only to throw it away seconds later, then I say go ahead and shoot JPEG only. But I guarantee you some day you'll want to make meaningful changes to your images and you'll find JPEG's produces so much posterization that you'll wish you had the RAW file handy. But hey, it's your dime so all I gotta say is "rock on"!

Yep, it's my dime. Raw files - or the "raw" data form the sensor - gets turned into a JPEG with the cameras interal "post processing". So, seeing as the camera works a bit harder by making JPEG files, i would say i am getting my moneys worth;)
 

Marcel

Happily retired
Staff member
Super Mod
This is an age old debate that will never end. As much as I agree that you can get very good results with straight jpegs from the camera if the shot is taken with attention, there are quite a few things that could not be brought back from jpegs that could with raw. This alone is worth it for me. Not to each is own and I really respect that. At my venerable age, I really don't need to be right.

This being said, there is one thing that you MUST remember. Each time you save a jpeg, you LOOSE quality. So beware and keep the original safe by changing the name of the file after your work in PP. This is the main advantage of raw and PS files, they don't shrink in size and quality as you rework on them.

Take pictures and enjoy your Nikons!
 

Carolina Photo Guy

Senior Member
This is not meant as a flame or anything (is the term "flame" still used?) but shooting in JPEG only is akin to turning your fine instrument into the worlds most expensive point and shoot.

Then if I shoot in JPEG, I'll have this camera?

The "NEW" Nikon P&S.jpg

This is the Leica "O" Series, one of only 12 known to survive from the 20's

Recently sold at auction for $2.8 MILLION dollars.

The very definition of Point and Shoot!
 

AC016

Senior Member
This is an age old debate that will never end. As much as I agree that you can get very good results with straight jpegs from the camera if the shot is taken with attention, there are quite a few things that could not be brought back from jpegs that could with raw. This alone is worth it for me. Not to each is own and I really respect that. At my venerable age, I really don't need to be right.

This being said, there is one thing that you MUST remember. Each time you save a jpeg, you LOOSE quality. So beware and keep the original safe by changing the name of the file after your work in PP. This is the main advantage of raw and PS files, they don't shrink in size and quality as you rework on them.

Take pictures and enjoy your Nikons!

I agree with you Marcel. It's slightly offending to hear someone state that if you don't shoot RAW, you might as well not use a DSLR. I could care less what you do with your pictures, but i don't need to have a snobish statement like that thrown my way. Yes, let's just enjoy our Nikons:)
 

Dave_W

The Dude
This being said, there is one thing that you MUST remember. Each time you save a jpeg, you LOOSE quality. So beware and keep the original safe by changing the name of the file after your work in PP. This is the main advantage of raw and PS files, they don't shrink in size and quality as you rework on them.

I couldn't have said it better myself. Don't throw away data that you will someday want. Once it's gone, it's gone!!
 

Dave_W

The Dude

Billy Y.

Senior Member
When I was in College we got to do all our own printing - B&W and Color, you could burn and dodge, dial in white balance, etc. I always enjoyed that part of it and I look at RAW the same way as Lab post processing. I tend to think I can get much better looking results than how the camera processes JPEG. I'm not sure about now but 7 years ago when I made the switch to digital a lot of magazines only wanted RAW, so that was also a good reason to shoot it. It's all preference though and some people don't like sitting in front of their computer. Why would one photographer even care what another decides to do with their shot? that is what I don't get.
Cheers
 
Last edited:

mikeh32217

Senior Member
I always use RAW, no question about it. Not because I have any love for PP but because I detest randomly throwing away data. The conversion from RAW to JPEG results in 3/4 of the information being tossed in the trash can. I simply do not trust the algorithm to know what to toss out and what to keep. This is not meant as a flame or anything (is the term "flame" still used?) but shooting in JPEG only is akin to turning your fine instrument into the worlds most expensive point and shoot. And if it's the time issue that you don't like about PP, you can automate it to spit out a JPEG but the key to shooting in RAW is that you still have all the data preserved so if you want to go back and access it, it will still be there.
It's better to have the data and not use it then to not have it at all!
 

Eye-level

Banned
I loath PP because I am a lazy SOB but IMO it is still necessary. While I shoot only jpg I know I really need to start shooting in raw so when I get a set of bigger cards I'll probably start doing that. I do agree with the OP anyone who says something like that is likely a bonehead but you will find this a lot on just about every camera forum...people who "know" everything and know what is "best" for all. It just doesn't work that way though.
 

Marcel

Happily retired
Staff member
Super Mod
I loath PP because I am a lazy SOB but IMO it is still necessary. While I shoot only jpg I know I really need to start shooting in raw so when I get a set of bigger cards I'll probably start doing that. I do agree with the OP anyone who says something like that is likely a bonehead but you will find this a lot on just about every camera forum...people who "know" everything and know what is "best" for all. It just doesn't work that way though.

Welcome back Jeff. So, when are we going to see the vacation pics? :)
 

Eye-level

Banned
Welcome back Jeff. So, when are we going to see the vacation pics? :)

That is why I jumped in on this thread. :) They are in post processing and I took so many the PP stuff is really dragging along...hahaha

I didn't get any really spectacular ones at all and not that many good ones really but there are a few that are ok. I will get some up tonight.

This is one of my favorites a nice little street shot - I put a little HDR to it - I just like the capture because it makes you wonder what they are doing and thinking.

cozumel boys.jpg
 

Rick M

Senior Member
Good to read you again Jeff!

I shoot mostly raw, I do enjoy PP, but the main reason is if I ever get that pic of a lifetime I want to be able to work with it and print as large as I can.

I shoot Jpeg for snapshots and inlaws (why would I want an enlargement of them:)), my more "serious" stuff is raw.
 
Top