Do you shoot "Raw" or "Jpeg"

[Browncoat]

On a more serious note...

The artist in me will never favor JPEG over RAW. In my mind at least, photography is an art form and subject to individual expression. If I just push a button, upload it to my computer, then push another button to print an image...what am I really creating, or am I just reproducing? What separates my photo from anyone else's? Couldn't an untrained chimpanzee do the same thing?

RAW is a creative license. It's the difference between taking a photograph and making one.

 

[montignac]

What I do not understand is the stand some people ( predominantly raw users) take. I cannot understand why you seem to imply that using anything else makes you an idiot. BOTH have their places and uses. The most important thing is understanding how to take a photo which means firstly the relationship between ISO, aperture, and speed. After that composition. As my photographic instructor said " You can't make a silk purse from a pigs ear whatever program you use and if you do you are cheating yourself as a photographer "

 

[J-see]

What I do not understand is the stand some people ( predominantly raw users) take. I cannot understand why you seem to imply that using anything else makes you an idiot. BOTH have their places and uses. The most important thing is understanding how to take a photo which means firstly the relationship between ISO, aperture, and speed. After that composition. As my photographic instructor said " You can't make a silk purse from a pigs ear whatever program you use and if you do you are cheating yourself as a photographer "

I'm not bothered about others using JPEG. A good shot is a good shot. Still I'm of the opinion if I choose JPEG over RAW, I should also have chosen P&S over DSLR. It's the same principle.

 

[Horoscope Fish]

On a more serious note...

The artist in me will never favor JPEG over RAW. In my mind at least, photography is an art form and subject to individual expression. If I just push a button, upload it to my computer, then push another button to print an image...what am I really creating, or am I just reproducing? What separates my photo from anyone else's? Couldn't an untrained chimpanzee do the same thing?

RAW is a creative license. It's the difference between taking a photograph and making one.

I don't know about chimpanzees, trained or otherwise, but I've been paid to take photos that were purely utilitarian in nature; documentation, more specifically, of specific land attributes for something that had to with geology that I really didn't understand. Point being: Not every photo needs to be a work of art, a personal expression or is intended to communicate personal expression. The agency paying me wanted documentation, not art, and they were quite satisfied with JPG's straight out of my camera because they could have them in minutes and in a format they could work with right straight away. No muss, no fuss, no bother.

RAW is great when you want to create an artistic expression, I agree. But it's also about choosing the right tool for the job.

Sometimes that means RAW, sometimes that means JPG.

.....

 

[Browncoat]

Oh, I agree. And I didn't mean to imply that JPEG sucks, is only for newbs, or has no place in photography. Not at all.

I use JPEG more and more often these days, mostly for what you just described. There are times when I just want a damn picture of something and I don't want to fuss around with it. I think it also has to do with having the experience to take a better photograph. There is certainly some merit to the argument that there's no need for RAW if you're able to properly expose a good photo in the first place. You'll get no disagreement from me on that point.

Sometimes RAW can be a crutch. Once you get good at manipulating the software, the need to actually learn photography can take a back seat.

 

[WayneF]

What I do not understand is the stand some people ( predominantly raw users) take. I cannot understand why you seem to imply that using anything else makes you an idiot. BOTH have their places and uses.

The word is not idiot, but it does suggest an unknowing or uncaring aspect, a "good enough" aspect.

Comparing photography to dancing, we can go out and stomp around and have a great time. Or maybe we can take lessons and then seriously work and practice at it, and become very proficient in all aspects. Hobbies do have different levels, but the difference is clear.

Raw has only existed in the last few years. But before that, darkroom work existed, same thing (just much harder and less capable), and for example, Ansel Adams is more known for his dark room work than for his camera work. But Raw capability does better compare to darkroom work than to just ordering drugstore prints. Same philosophies.

And of course then, the drugstore guy did process our "raw" for us. You really think exposure and white balance was always even close? But now, with digital, we are that guy, the job is ours.

The point is not really if we need to do Raw or not - that is simply a choice. Seems to me the point is that Raw offers so much easy opportunity get it exactly right... if we care. And Raw being so easy and so good and so fast, one does wonder why everyone else does not care?

 

[montignac]

I too am paid for taking photos and also have displays where I sell them. Like Browncoat says. if I need to produce art then I use LR, BUT to make people feel inferior just because they don't is wrong. Last night I witnessed the President of the club I belong to telling a newbie that he had to shoot RAW if hewas to produce a decent photo. I will let you imagine the response from myself and 2 other senior members. Sorry if I am still venting my rage here, but it is as I said, in my opinion, BOTH have their uses BUT you MUST understand the basics first then use the format the situation requires.

 

[Horoscope Fish]

I too am paid for taking photos and also have displays where I sell them. Like Browncoat says. if I need to produce art then I use LR, BUT to make people feel inferior just because they don't is wrong. Last night I witnessed the President of the club I belong to telling a newbie that he had to shoot RAW if hewas to produce a decent photo. I will let you imagine the response from myself and 2 other senior members. Sorry if I am still venting my rage here, but it is as I said, in my opinion, BOTH have their uses BUT you MUST understand the basics first then use the format the situation requires.

I see "snobbery" like that all the time. My personal suggestion is that you summarily dismiss it.

....

 

[montignac]

No Wayne F it does not mean "good enough" using RAW could mean " I take lousy shots but can correct them and cover my mistakes"

 

[AC016]

I'm not bothered about others using JPEG. A good shot is a good shot. Still I'm of the opinion if I choose JPEG over RAW, I should also have chosen P&S over DSLR. It's the same principle.

That is such a cliche. Look at the Sony RX100. It's a P&S and shoots in RAW. P&S cameras are not the P&S cameras of 10 years ago. I do somewhat understand what you are saying, but here we are again, thinking that a DSLR is the "epitome" of photography. RAW files can be produced by so many cameras today, even P&S cameras.

 

[montignac]

Hang on Horoscope are we not both saying the same thing i.e. horses for courses. I use both as the situation demands therefore do not like myself or others to feel lacking because they use JPEG

 

[Horoscope Fish]

Hang on Horoscope are we not both saying the same thing i.e. horses for courses. I use both as the situation demands therefore do not like myself or others to feel lacking because they use JPEG

We're on the same page. It's the snobbery of RAW being "the only way to fly" I feel should be ignored. JPG is absolutely the right answer sometimes.

....

 

[montignac]

OK Read it the wrong way. I agree totally with you and it gets me really pi55ed. I have seen at least 3 enthusiastic newbies put off learning how to improve their skills by ill informed idea that you must use RAW. I agree that LR is the equivalent of my darkroom BUT I could not see what was happenyng until I developed the film hence we took many more photos and needed to work im the darkroom. Today yoy see the result in an instant and you can adjust your settings as opposed to point and shoot in raw thinking "I can always correct it later"

 

[WayneF]

No Wayne F it does not mean "good enough" using RAW could mean " I take lousy shots but can correct them and cover my mistakes"

It could. Either way, I can easily make them better.

So the prints that you sell... do you sell them straight out of camera, with zero corrections? If so, I'm impressed.

 

[Don Kuykendall_RIP]

I think for a new shooter that JPEG is the best way to start. Learn the camera, then learn post processing by shooting RAW and JPEG and only when you can do better in PP with the RAW shot do you start shooting RAW only.

 

[J-see]

That is such a cliche. Look at the Sony RX100. It's a P&S and shoots in RAW. P&S cameras are not the P&S cameras of 10 years ago. I do somewhat understand what you are saying, but here we are again, thinking that a DSLR is the "epitome" of photography. RAW files can be produced by so many cameras today, even P&S cameras.

I said to me the principle is identical.

I have a DSLR because I want to be in control when taking a shot. It would then be rather illogical to give away that control, after all my effort in taking it, in how it will be displayed.

 

[Skwaz]

Good words JohnP
dont like the snobbery of raw v jpeg
i support Liverpool and my wife supporters Blackburn do I tell her she's a fool ! !

 

[AC016]

The word is not idiot, but it does suggest an unknowing or uncaring aspect, a "good enough" aspect.

Comparing photography to dancing, we can go out and stomp around and have a great time. Or maybe we can take lessons and then seriously work and practice at it, and become very proficient in all aspects. Hobbies do have different levels, but the difference is clear.

Raw has only existed in the last few years. But before that, darkroom work existed, same thing (just much harder and less capable), and for example, Ansel Adams is more known for his dark room work than for his camera work. But Raw capability does better compare to darkroom work than to just ordering drugstore prints. Same philosophies.

And of course then, the drugstore guy did process our "raw" for us. You really think exposure and white balance was always even close? But now, with digital, we are that guy, the job is ours.

The point is not really if we need to do Raw or not - that is simply a choice. Seems to me the point is that Raw offers so much easy opportunity get it exactly right... if we care. And Raw being so easy and so good and so fast, one does wonder why everyone else does not care?

Why do you seem to think that people who don't shoot in RAW, don't care?? I am quite sure that many people who shoot in JPEG, take their time to frame the scene and make sure they have the camera settings right. If they did not care about their photos, they would just put their camera in full Auto and blast away at everything and anything, not even considering if the photo is in focus, level, etc. Though, who are we to judge and say they don't care? Some people just want memories of where they have been and those photos they took mean a lot to them, so they must care.

If you sell anything on fleaBay or anywhere else, you usually take a photo. JPEG is just fine for that. Hell, a camera phone is fine for that. Each format has it's place and utilization.

If you shoot only in RAW, great. But don't try to belittle people who don't. One size does not fit all, no matter how many analogies you use.

 

[AC016]

I said to me the principle is identical.

I have a DSLR because I want to be in control when taking a shot. It would then be rather illogical to give away that control, after all my effort in taking it, in how it will be displayed.

You can have that same control with many other cameras Just saying...

 

[WayneF]

If you sell anything on fleaBay or anywhere else, you usually take a photo. JPEG is just fine for that. Hell, a camera phone is fine for that. Each format has it's place and utilization.

That is what I am calling "good enough". We don't care to try harder. (and raw and a bit of dressing up might take only another minute. But, we have to care.)

If you shoot only in RAW, great. But don't try to belittle people who don't. One size does not fit all, no matter how many analogies you use.

It is not about belittling. The goal is to be helpful. It is suggesting that amazing and easy tools do exist.