RAW snobism has got to stop!

It never ceases to amaze me but RAW (WAR spelled backwards - which it seemingly seems

to be!) vs. JPEG articles (not all but most) always end up with the same conclusion, in that

those who care most about image quality shoot RAW and JPEG is good, but not in the same

"league", etc.

 

This otherwise accurate and quite good article, which claims and tries for the most part to

be objective, is a good point to illustrate what I call "RAW sobism".

 

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-raw-files.shtml

 

All is well until the "Summary" part where the author really tells us how he feels:

 

"Certainly anyone looking for the best possible image quality will want to shoot in raw

mode whever possible"

 

Now, pardon me but IMO this is utter crap. All his cases for JPEG are about convenience,

speed, and lack of time or desire to sit behind a computer and edit away with a RAW

converter at "of course" the sacrifice of quality. The latter of course being BS in a lot of

cases.

 

But you know what? Plenty of peple, myself include, DO care about quality and shoot JPEG.

I don't shoot JPEG because I don't care about quality. That is absurd! In fact I used to shoot

RAW exclusively (used ACR and C1 quite a LOT), but realized that for me personally it was

a waste of time and the quality I got/get from a JPEG is the same with the way I shoot. I

can show you 20x30 prints where you cannot tell the difference if the file was a JPEG or a

RAW converted TIFF. I know - I had to convince myself at first to switch from RAW to JPEG.

 

Yes, sure if you don't get your exposure or WB right, and do a lot of editing in Photoshop,

RAW will get you better results. But in some ways this encourages bad practices (yes I

know JPEG shooters are also called snobs because they advocate getting it right in the

camera..). This is not to say that I'm anti people who choose to shoot RAW. For some I'm

sure it's fun/nice/desirable to have a 16bit file on which edits are easier to make. And

some like the flexibility of going back to the original file to make a new image with a

different WB, etc.

 

But don't come and tell me that unless I shoot RAW it must mean I don't care about

quality.

 

I don't want to generalize, but from what I've seen in person and read, it seems to be RAW

is more of an escape route (and an easy one at that) for poor exposure, WB settings, etc.

for a LOT of people. Not all, of course, but for most I've seen. "Expose to the right and

blah, blah, blah". "Underexpose and fix it in the RAW converter". Funny things if you really

stop to think about it. How about, "Expose it right and get your WB right, and do minimal

stuff in Photoshop?" Why not?

 

I guess that author ought to talk to Jay Maisel who mostly, if not only, shoots JPEG. Some

of the big names in the pixel industry keep trying to get him to switch, but even they

admit his results speak for themselves. So ask yourself. Are you as good as Jay Maisel?

Does he not care about quality?

 

Bogdan

Tell us how you <i>really</i> feel...

RE <i>"Certainly anyone looking for the best possible image quality will want to shoot in raw mode whever (sic) possible"<br><BR>

 

 

Now, pardon me but IMO this is utter crap.</i><BR><BR>Shooting in TIFF versus JPEG is vastly better for some specialized subjects; such as text. This has been known for at least a decade; and common knownledge. We did tests on this at our shop 1 decade ago; when using Photoshop 2.5. <BR><BR>JPEG is made for photos; and is total crap for fine text and line work; when the compression is too much.

This is why I shoot film.

yea, i agree...theres no real diff between raw and jpg....raw just allows you to change the settings is all...

I guess there is no difference between LA and NYC either! :)

-->I guess that author ought to talk to Jay Maisel who mostly, if not only, shoots JPEG.

 

Used to. The pixel mafia has done a good job finally convincing Jay (actually his digital guy

Jackson) into use RAW.

 

Shot JPEG of you wish. If you're happy with what you get, no argument. Problem is you

have NO control over the RAW to JPEG conversion today and anytime in the future. The

color appearance from RAW to whatever you get is fixed. You have the wrong white

balance or you need that extra stop of density, sorry. RAW is about options and getting

ALL the available data (which isn't even in color yet) the camera can produce. It's like

actually getting a color neg rather than a chrome. You don't like the neg, pop a different

filter pack in the enlarger. You don't like the color in the chrome, tuff.

 

Andrew Rodney

 

http://digitaldog.imagingrevue.com/

One of the great advantages digital offers is choice. Every photographer is free to choose the shooting style and digital workflow that makes the most sense. For me, the choice is about practicality, not snobbery.

 

After ponying up big money for a couple of DSLRs, I choose to use the advantages of shooting RAW, especially for important and non-repeatable events.

 

At important events I now shoot RAW + JPG high/fine. Usually, the camera and I nail the exposure and WB, and I just post-process the JPG files. If a WB or exposure correction is required on any frames, I convert and edit the RAW file.

 

Under mixed lighting in theatre and concert venues, and under extreme backlighting and other challenges, RAW has saved the day several times. It's great insurance, and gives you the highest quality digital negative for backups and archiving.

<I>The color appearance from RAW to whatever you get is fixed.</i><P>If you shot the damn thing right in the first place you could use GIF for all I care and it would still look better than relying on the computer operator with his 'puck' in hand to fix the problem for you. <P>Right here is an illustration of why film shooters are bitching about bad skin tones in high end magazines from digital capture, and rightfully making a point. If you ask the photographer, they'll just shrug their shoulders and claim they shot in RAW, so it's not their problem. The imaging/pre-press guy will simply point at his workflow tools and indicate it's not a problem. Hell, it was shot in RAW and converted to AdobeRGB and not that icky sRGB, so how dare somebody complain about skin tones. Must be the photographers fault. This from somebody that's convinced you need to use AdobeRGB to fit the gamut range of industrial inks on magazine paper. Give me a flippin' break. <P><I> had to convince myself at first to switch from RAW to JPEG<P></i>Boy, do I hear you. RAW capture's main advantage is to squeeze a bit more dymanic range out of the sensor, and that means a bit more detail at the extremes of color saturation, which digital capture sucks with anyways because it's a linear response and you'll likely never approach unless you only shoot, er, crayons for camera tests. For real world shooting stick to 100/200 speed as much as possible, and watch your histogram.<P><I>Expose it right and get your WB right, and do minimal stuff in Photoshop?" Why not? </i><P>Job security for an industry full of software manufacturers and pre-press techs that insist you need to do conversion from RAW because of all that hidden information hidden between the 1, and 0's. Just like you, I have yet to see much advantage with shooting in RAW unless I need just a hair more dynamic range. When my 10D is capable of a full, 48-bit capture, then I'll start shooting in RAW.

> If you shot the damn thing right in the first place you could use GIF for all

> I care and it would still look better than relying on the computer operator

> with his 'puck' in hand to fix the problem for you.

 

What's right? You get what you get. You have no control over the color rendering let alone

the color space (sRGB, Adobe RGB which isn't even what it is).

 

 

> Right here is an illustration of why film shooters are bitching about bad

> skin tones in high end magazines from digital capture, and rightfully making a

> point. If you ask the photographer, they'll just shrug their shoulders and

> claim they shot in RAW,

 

 

RAW is digital clay. You can make a lovely vase or an ugly ashtray. It's all up to the person

and the software handling the conversion.

 

 

> This from somebody that's convinced you need to use AdobeRGB to fit the gamut >

range of industrial inks on magazine paper. Give me a flippin' break.

 

 

RAW can become any color space you want at any time. Adobe RGB is a vastly better space

for some output needs than sRGB.

 

 

> Job security for an industry full of software manufacturers and pre-press

> techs that insist you need to do conversion from RAW because of all that

> hidden information hidden between the 1, and 0's.

 

 

No one around here is insisting. There is no conspiracy theory about job security

necessary. If you don't need the flexibility and possible control RAW provides don't use it.

That doesn't change what RAW can do for those that have the tools and need the control

and flexibility it provides.

 

This is akin to those that say there's no reason to edit in high bit data. You don't want the

flexibility it provides and don't believe you'll ever see banding on output and don't think

the added flexibility it provides (at a price in file size and until recently editing flexibility)

then don't use it.

 

Andrew Rodney

 

Http://digitaldog.imagingrevue.com/

What gives with the sense of its one or the other? We are not talking religious dogma here. Most images do not niecessarily benefit from a raw file. A good photographer takes advantage of the tools available to him (her). You use what is necessary to get the best image. Something like film. You use a certain type of film for a certain effect. Sometimes you use RAW for the same reason.

90% of the time I shoot jpeg images. Why? because I am almost positive what the outcome is goint to be. For production images Jpeg. The 10% of the rest of the time, I am dealing with either too much contrast or trickier colour balance than I want to have. That is where a RAW file comes in handy. It gives you just that additional edge when necessary.

So if you want to limit yourself to one or the other, fill your boots.

Practice, see if there are any advantages one or the other in your shooting style and see whether there is some benefit to you. That way you will prove to yoursel whether raw files are worth the bother. Remember, they dont cost anymore to shoot (except for space on the card)

<I>That is absurd! In fact I used to shoot RAW exclusively (used ACR and C1 quite a

LOT), but realized that for me personally it was a waste of time and the quality I got/

get from a JPEG is the same with the way I shoot.</I> <P>Well that is certainly a

personal decision but can't be applied to all circumstances and all photographers,

only to you.<I> I guess that author ought to talk to Jay Maisel who mostly, if not only,

shoots JPEG.</I><P> Ahem! Jay is an friend of mine of long standing and hasn't

been

shooting JPEG files for awhile. And to put a finer point on the matter: neither of his

assistants let him touch a computer.<P>

 

Scott Eaton wrote:<P><I>Right here is an illustration of why film shooters are

bitching about bad skin tones in high end magazines from digital capture, and

rightfully making a point. If you ask the photographer, they'll just shrug their

shoulders and claim they shot in RAW, so it's not their problem. </I><P> You touch

on a good point there Scott. Most photographers don't really know what they are

doing regarding digital imaging. Another point you touch on obliquely is that most

most photographers don't/won't work at integrating themselves into their client's

pre-press workflow. A third point you touch on is that some pre-press guys and

printers consider it a reasonable business tactic to make even the best most digital &

pre-press savvy photographers look bad as they perceive it will cut into their

business & profits. Scott you are a great guy and I always look forward to seeing what

you have to say , but in these matters I am gonna defer to Andrew Rodney.

Bodgan, I'm afraid there's just no way you can be sure whether (a) those who

disagree with you are snobs &/or careless shooters; or (b) they're simply

workiing, at least on some images, to higher tolerances than you've been able

to appreciate. We can't settle that point here - it just has to remain an open

question.

It all depends on the subject and environment. And I don't really care what others say per se because I do my own testing....;)...J

Bogdan, cool down! Just do whatever you want. If you want to shoot JPEG and you get satisfying results, good for you. Nobody is forcing you to shoot RAW. Just do whatever you think works best for you.

Kirk you're right! I don't know. And it's fine with me, as I've said, if people want to shoot

RAW. What do I care? I'll shoot RAW once in a while too!

 

But snobism is when someone says that, "Certainly anyone looking for the best possible

image quality will want to shoot in raw mode whever possible", implying that if I shoot

JPEG I'm somehow looking for lesser quality! The concept is elitist crap, pardon my

english.

 

And yes Jay might have switched, but was his stuff crap before he switched? Not from what

I heard. And Jay is not the only pro. Many others STILL shoot JPEG. I used him as an

example.

 

I myself said RAW is really about flexibility! I did not disagree! I merely pointed out that a

lot of people I've personally seen shoot RAW for the flexibility to fix mistakes. Not all of

course, but a lot.

 

Anyway, my point was not anti RAW (which some saw it as, hence WAR spelled backwards

;), but about the quality argument which upsets me because it's just not correct.

 

So a lot of newcomers to the digital world feel that unless they shoot RAW they are lesser

photographers and THAT is the wrong idea to install in people's minds. Like I said, people

moving over to digital would probably be better off served starting out shooting JPEG,

which in a way is like slide film - you either get it right or you don't. You have time to

learn about digital's limitations and advantages. Then they can choose

to go to RAW later if they like. I don't know - to me it just makes sense.

 

How many questions do we see about RAW converters, RAW conversions, and people

blaming their techniques, etc.? "My 10D's flesh tones are too red!" "What is wrong with it!"

Well nothing, except you didn't calibrate ACR for your particular 10D and that's the

problem.

 

See what I'm saying? People are learning software before learning digital shooting, which is

sort of backwards.

 

Anyway, I digress, because my real argument has to do with quality of a JPEG vs a

converted RAW. But that "JPEG is crappier attitude" leads some to the above, which IMHO is

not right.

 

Bogdan

Jesper,

 

I'm cool man! I think my style of writing (exclamation marks, capital letters, etc.) makes it

more dramatic, but I'm cool and relaxed ;) Of course I shoot what I want.

 

Believe me I shot RAW exclusively. Because after reading biased articles and so on, I felt it

was the only way. It took me a while of messing around with ACR calibrations, shooting

colorchecker cards to do the calibrations, messing with C1 profiles which make no sense

(another story ;), etc. to realize that in fact I was getting better or similar results in my

embedded JPEGS! Of course things like color and what is accurate or pleasing is very

subjective, but I was never able to get ACR (even after all my calibrations which most don't

even do!) to get me the accurate colors that my 10D gives me when converting in-camera

to JPEGs. And I've tried 4-5 10Ds - same deal. Maybe I'm incompetent!

 

Bogdan

Jesper,

 

I forgot to add. This is not about ME. I know I'm not being forced into anything, but see

my previous post. And the main point is still missed about quality.

 

So far I've seen only one argument for shooting text. Show me the examples!

 

Bogdan

Every time you shoot a picture it starts out as a raw file. Then if you have jpeg selected as the storage option, the tiny little CPU in your camera runs a set of algorithms to "throw away" the most data it can and still produce a reasonable image for you. JPEG was developed as a means of compressing images for low bandwidth transmission/ storage space reduction. There is some really cool math behind it but in order to fit it on the little chip in your camera, a lot of shortcuts were made. I shoot RAW and then use Capture 1 to do my file conversion. It takes about 20 seconds on a 3 GHz CPU to do the whole process and about a fraction of a second on my camera CPU. Hmmm... Also, shooting JPEG means you are probably using AWB (Awful white balance). When I shoot RAW, the first image is a Gretag color checker card. I use it later with Capture 1 to correct the white (Grey) balance of my shots. I can also fine tune the amount of sharpening (the jpeg process will force one on you). I am not color balancing in the blind post process, the color checker card and the grey balance process does it for me in a very controlled fashion. Do yourself a favor, try RAW and download a 30 day trial version of Capture1 (www.phaseone.com) and see just how much better your images can be.

Ronald,

 

No offense, but did you actually READ what I posted? I know how things work and have

tried RAW converters more than you can imagine. So shooting JPEG now means I have no

clue and use AWB? Please.....

 

You are EXACTLY what's wrong here, sorry. You assume incompetence or unfamiliarity just

because I shoot JPEG now, even though I posted info that explains what I do. Read my

previous posts on this forum regarding RAW. Do YOURSELF a favor..... try a RAW converter

that doesn't rely on faulty input profiles like C1 (don't get me started there). Try ACR.

 

Andrew,

 

I also thought about long term archivalness of RAW files, but realized that is a crap shoot.

RAW files are not like negatives, in the sense that negs were/are a standard format. Will

my CRW be around for me to re-touch in 5 years? Or will CRW.10 be the one? RAW is not a

standard, so I cannot count on it for archival reasons. One reason against it for me. It's

good until it's not supported anymore. And who will continue to support it in 5 years?

Canon - maybe. ACR? C1? Who knows? I like to stick to standards when talking about

archivalness. The negative analogy is correct, but only until the format changes. A

standard RAW format would be nice - but hardly possible.

 

Bogdan

-->I also thought about long term archivalness of RAW files, but realized that is a crap

shoot. RAW files are not like negatives, in the sense that negs were/are a standard format.

Will my CRW be around for me to re-touch in 5 years?

 

Ah, now you're bringing up something that DOES need to be discussed and fixed which is

we need a RAW standard format. The advantages of RAW are clear to those who want to be

able to render the data anytime using better and better software tools but ONLY if we can

get the software manufacturers to open up this can of worms. There are over 100 RAW

formats. If someone like Thomas Knoll wants to implement that in Adobe Camera RAW, he

usually has to hack the source as there are usually no published SDKs. This is totally

unacceptable. What if Nikon or Canon decides not to support our ability to deal with files

created today in 10 years? We're screwed. Check out rawformat.com/

 

As for Jay, thankfully he has seen the light (usually after seeing enormous 9600 prints).

The fact that a lot of his older prints exhibit JPEG artifacts that could knock you out, it

doesn't have anything to do with his amazing photographic talent. What Jay can do has

nothing to do with RAW verses TIFF verses JPEG. The differences do show when he cranks

out a huge print but that doesn't alter the fact that the image itself is totally amazing.

 

Andrew Rodney

 

Http://digitaldog.imagingrevue.com/

I don't see the problem as raw-format snobbism -- I see more JPEG fear-mongering.

 

<p>I've seen posts on the forums right here with folks fearing their JPEGs are loosing

quality

sitting on their hard drives as if the files were decaying like radioactive elements. There is

a

severe lack of understanding just what a JPEG is and why it's being used.

 

<p>That being said, there are reasons to use raw just like there is for JPEG.

 

<p>IMHO, if someone <em>needs</em> to ask if they should use raw or JPEG, they

should probably use

JPEG -- they're much better off working on their photographic technique than spending

time trying to rescue badly exposed and/or off color-balanced raw-format files.

 

<p>For my use, I've found the JPEGs out of the Canon 10D to be perfectly acceptable. For

me,

it's not worth the extra inconvenience of working with raw for the small (IMHO) gains in

quality and dynamic range. YMMV.

"As for Jay, thankfully he has seen the light (usually after seeing enormous 9600 prints). The fact that a lot of his older prints exhibit JPEG artifacts that could knock you out, it doesn't have anything to do with his amazing photographic talent. What Jay can do has nothing to do with RAW verses TIFF verses JPEG. The differences do show when he cranks out a huge print but that doesn't alter the fact that the image itself is totally amazing."

 

Andrew,

 

Agree on the standard RAW format, and that is a huge reason I don't use it (except rarely anymore - when I need 16bit for editing).

 

But to comment on your quote above that is the point! The differences show up mostly on huge prints and are really irrelevant if the image is good. I'm afraid future photographers will be more versed in Photoshop than in capturing and composing an image....

 

I've seen so many technically perfect images that are total crap lately. Maybe photography will turn into painting...

 

Bogdan

<I>I've seen so many technically perfect images that are total crap lately.</I>

<P>

Yeah, but that's not the fault of using RAW. Given that it's so easy today to go from camera to web (in front of the whole world), it's not surprising that we are seeing more and more work than ever, and it's further not very surprising that some of it is technically excellent but not very interesting or creative. But it doesn't mean that technical perfection and creative imagery are at odds. If Jay Maisel has a great shot in which some people see flaws in the print, I would argue that it certainly wouldn't be a worse shot without those flaws, whether many others perceive them or not, and for some of his audience, it would be better.

-->But to comment on your quote above that is the point! The differences show up mostly

on huge prints and are really irrelevant if the image is good. I'm afraid future

photographers will be more versed in Photoshop than in capturing and composing an

image....

 

This goes back to flexibility. Jay and most photographers would prefer NOT to see JPEG

artifacts on large prints. Yes, if you look at a huge print real close, not viewing distance,

you see this problem and likely none when you view accordingly. Yes, artifacts or not, the

image stands on it's own. That doesn't change the facts that the artifacts are there, that

everytime the file is opened, changed and saved (in JPEG) the loss is compounded. It

doesn't change the facts that while the image itself is amazing, the artifacts get in Jay's

way to make larger prints. It's like suggesting we set the camera to ISO 1600 all the time

because who's really going to care about the substantial increase in noise. It's not going to

change the art of the image. Why shoot large format? If we blow up a 35mm past where it

should compared to a 4x5, it's still the same fine imagery. The only thing that "suffers" is

the quality of the blow up. We have to decide if we want to separate the artistic intent of

an image with the technology and methods in which the image was shot. Jay or anyone

else could expose the image incorrectly and fix it in Photoshop to some degree. So we

should therefore be casual about exposure? Camera shake, focus?

 

This is by and large a technical debate. The bottom line is RAW provides a far higher level

of flexibility in data handling than what a camera that gives you a color image provides.

You can't really even debate this since it's a fact. You may find the tools poor or the

workflow an issue in which case shooting outside of RAW is the right answer for you. The

analogy of a color neg with RAW still applies because you have an huge degree of control

over how the color is created from a RAW file compared to what you can do with the

exiting

color provided by the camera. What we need are better RAW converters so you can have

your cake and eat it (faster, better control etc) and an open format so that RAW data can

be handled today and in the future with vastly superior software.

 

The quality possible from the same sensor dump today and in the future can be night and

day. I've seen this as I've beta tested a number of camera products. The data hasn't

changed but the results can be tremendously different in just the course of software

development. The process that converts that RAW data you're shooting anyway is fixed

today and will remain that way until you get yourself a new camera.

 

Andrew Rodney