Why beginners shouldn't shoot RAW...

[edrodgers]

I think shooting RAW is like shooting film. Shooting JPEG is like shooting film and letting the camera decide how it should be printed.

[forrest.berkshire]

The biggest problem I see with this advice is that they are shooting a wedding. If you are a beginner, then it goes to figure you are at a lower skill level. I understand your point, that people need to learn the basic fundamentals of photography rather than relying on the processing.

 

However, if you are shooting a wedding, then you should be doing it for money. Someone is paying you for a service, and you should provide the best service you possibly can. Shooting a wedding isn't about the photographer (or shouldn't be, at least). It's about the client. Your client shouldn't have to pay for your photography lessons. If you screw up, they are the ones who suffer.

 

So I think better advice would be for wedding photogs starting out to learn to shoot JPEG on their own time. Or better yet, burn through a couple rolls of slide film on a film camera.

 

I shoot RAW, but treat it as if I am shooting JPEG, simply because the better your exposure on the scene the less time you spend fixing the photo at the computer. I like to shoot, not work on a computer.

 

Yes, RAW is great. But nothing beats a perfect exposure on the spot.

[kelvinphoto - arlington, t]

I am just curious for those that shoot RAW, how much time do you spend on PP?

 

For 4-6 hour wedding, I spend 1-2 hours on my jpeg PP.

For Vietnamese Wedding (12-14 hour), I spend 2-4 hours on my jpeg PP.

 

All I do on my PP is to delete the one that I don't like and convert some of them into bw or add soft for the one that is my favorite.

[ramon_albanese]

I'm seeing a lot of snide "digs" on this issue, and I'm asking myself, "....I wonder why?...." I myself shoot JPEG all the time, and have been doing so for quite a while. I believe Forrest said it right when he said, "RAW is great. But nothing beats a perfect exposure on the spot". I shoot JPEG because I have LEARNED to get the right exposure instantly. Isn't that what a "pro" is? Isn't that what a pro" does? Now I too admit that I'm no photoshop master, but then again, I don't want to be; I don't have to be; I don't need to be! For over 40 years I've be taking photos and I've learned to get it right the first time. Sure, if you want to tweak a little here and a little there, that's fine. I can do that with JPEG's. I don't need RAW! I'm tired of seeing these so-called "pro's" at weddings setting up their subjects and begin to take shot after shot, sometimes 8, 9, or 10 shots, all of the same subject, all of the same pose, hoping to get it right. This is professional? This is a "Pro"? Give me a break. A real "pro" takes one shot, perhaps two,.....THAT'S IT!

While I'm at it, a few of you mentioned the LCD screen. I laugh at weddings, seeing "pro's" always with their heads bent down looking over their LCD screens after EVERY SINGLE photo that they take, evaluating the results that they are looking at. No wonder many "pro's" go home with "stiff necks". If you know what you are doing, you don't need to be looking at your LCD screen after every single shot!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You should already know the results beforehand. THAT IS A PRO (in my opinion).

While I'm at it again, one last point. Look. After you blow all the smoke away; after you stop all of the excusing; the reason you shoot RAW is to correct your mistakes! Is that a "professional?" I don't care if you have a lot of work and earn a six figure income. I've seen photos from "six figure" income photographers, and after seeing them, I want to puke. They are not successful, professional photographers. They are successful, professional S-A-L-E-S-M-E-N!

So, your're a "pro"? Then act like it! Don't be acting like a bunch of clowns, going home with "stiff necks" on the one hand, or on the other hand, taking 5 - 10 shot of the same pose, hoping at least one of them will be correct. Hey. What the heck. "Even if all 10 are not nice, since I took them in RAW, I'll spend the next day or two trying to correct my mistakes and arrive at a reasonable photo".

How can anyone, suggesting to call this "professional" is beyond bizarre!

[KenPapai]

So Ramon, as to your rather bizarre rant, do you eat sushi (RAW) or steak well done (JPG)?

 

Saying you can adjust white balance in a JPG-only shoot means 8-bit editing (ick! combs!) and data loss.

Not something worth considering or ever recommending if you value the highest quality.

 

So, how could there possibly be any argument towards shooting JPG, unless you are computer phobic? Only an expert like Yervant, who shoots only models, using 3 highly paid assistants has the skill to shoot JPG.

[edrodgers]

Wow Ramone, How do you REALLY feel? :)

 

I think I shoot RAW for more than fixing mistakes. I don't think my Digic II processor does a good job of setting white and black points, sharpness, color, or contrast. I guess it does do a good job for what it is, but I can do better in most cases.

 

Not to mention jpeg throwing away a full third of the color data. Sure, most of the time we don't need 16 bits of color, but 8 bits falls apart fast with ANY manipulation in Photoshop.

 

When I shoot film, I want my original negative. Why throw away 4 stops of latitude and about 6 million colors? I may as well shoot slide film at a wedding.

 

Besides.. Who cares? To each his own as they say.

[leo patrone]

It doesn't matter what format you shoot. It is all about knowing how to expose your images and more than anything is all about talent, something you can't buy at your local store.

[rtrace]

"Shooting JPEGs is to "pigeonhole" your self into a painted corner. And most pro labs will laugh at you come printing time."

 

LOL, yeah... Because we all know "pro" labs print RAW files directly.

 

Bogdan

[thomas_sullivan]

a REAL Professional will learn and use ALL the features of the camera and Photoshop available and use them to his best advantage.........PERIOD! Except for a few notable comments above, most of you have got your think backwards. The idea is to strive for perfection in every single step. Perfection includes image quality, print sizes, delivery to customer. For example, if you shoot weddings where the customer is quite happy to wait a while for the results..........then why not use RAW. But if your customer is a fashion magazine who needs 200 pics of a fashion event the day after you shoot.......screw RAW.....shoot Jpegs. If you're printing 16x20 inch scenics.....RAW RAW RAW! If you're printing family albums with nothing larger than 5x7s......JPG JPG JPG!

 

And that's just reasons off the top of my head. Technology is great these days........but you, the photographer, still have to decide how to use each tool to it's best advantage.

[fotografz]

See, endless debate, no resolution.

 

Here's another useless comment:

 

All the posts have been about shooting, and few touched on the processing other than

the time it takes.

 

When you shoot RAW, and even half know what you are doing in setting up your RAW

defaults, you can Image Process to jpgs in literally minutes, then go about your jpg

workflow. PhotoShop Image Processing to jpgs verses that little pea brained computer in

your camera is like the difference between a Piper Cub and a F-16.

 

PLUS, you still have the RAW files to go to in case there's a problem file.

[gina_marie1]

Why not everyone just be allowed to shoot as they wish without being judged.

 

From a beginner's perspective: I used to read these boards before I purchased my first digital SLR in August. Some posts sounded as if shooting and processing RAW was comparable to rocket science. I shot one day in JPEG and then decided to shoot RAW from then out, I figured it was like learning to drive..start with a stick shift (which was presumed to be more difficult) & driving an automatic would be a breeze. I use ADOBE Lightroom to view the RAW files, make basic adjustments w/ WB and contrast, etc. but also to get the style that I prefer..increased color & saturation, direct process. As a beginner, I did not shoot RAW because I figured "shoot now, fix mistakes later." I shoot it because from what I learned, RAW files =more information and more information= better. The fact that you had more flexibility for mistakes was a bonus. I took a class and from day 1 the instructor said only shoot in manual, no TV, no AV, no P mode and as a beginner, that is how I learned and improved..the fact that it was RAW or JPEG didn't matter because post processing was more for artistic vs. 'fixing' the exposure. Of course, I'm still learning and so when I do make a mistake with an exposure or WB needs to be adjusted..I'm glad it can be 'fixed' in RAW just as I'll be thankful for it when I'm a seasoned pro, because everyone makes mistakes now and then.

[mendel_leisk]

I'd vote raw only. To throw away all that potential, just retaining a lossy jpeg...

 

And what the heck is a 'beginner'? A state of mind?

[picturesque]

Getting back to the original question/comment, I would say, shoot whatever you want based on your personal beliefs and workflow and, I can see some merit in using the more narrow latitude of JPEGs to train yourself, BUT NOT at a wedding where you are getting paid as the primary pro photographer. Maybe at a party or something, where the consequences are not so important.

[jmichaelc]

Another reason i preferr RAW is that my daughter likes playing with my images in the ACR control panel.....she can do what ever she wants with a lot of oooohs and aaaaahs and i don't have to worry about what button she hits. Disregard everything else that makes sense....that's the primary reason for me. There is a million reasons....do what works for you, satifify the client - the end.

[conraderb]

Hmmm...it sounds like people have their minds made up, which is fine. The only people who are probably waffling are the newbies who are considering the raw v. JPG issue right now.

<BR><BR>

conrad erb<BR>

conrad erb photography<BR>

a raw shooter - but only because that is what is best for moi.

[StuartMoxham]

While you can get the exposure and white balance right while shooting JPGs you get a little more dynamic range with RAW, not much but every little helps. You can even process your RAW files as shot if you like and take a coffee or a beer while the computer does the work but you have the RAW files to come back to if you need them. Shooting RAW won't turn a bad shot into a good one but it can help to keep detail in the whites and the blacks in not so favourable conditions. If you have the memory cards and a reasonable computer then RAW is not the time sink like it used to be. When you shoot negative film you would be suprised how much help you get from the lab if they printed everything at fixed time fixed filtration many would be suprised just how not spot on their exposures really are.

[stephen dohring]

Marc Williams is right! - You can batch process your raws into jpgs and work on those - Then if you need a huge department store blow up you have the large RAW file.

 

Also - Adobe Light Room can change the same adjustments in jpg as it can in raw - so the issue is card space size.

 

Another issue is creative cropping. Many shots even great out of the camera might be used in the album in a different way so the larger file for me offers the most creativity.

[StuartMoxham]

The light room adjustment is not quite the same with a jpg because it is working on an already processed imaged so any adjustment on a jpg is after the camera processing on a RAW file it happens before. In the end there is no way around it the RAW file contains more data to work with. You can adjust the white balance of a jpg but some of the channels may aready be clipped but with the RAW they may not be.

[nancy s.]

One should not be learning when they are doing a professional job. Whenever taking a photograph you need to get it as correct as you can right out of the camera. You should always be paying attention to your settings and your exposure. ALWAYS.

 

You need to be the "better photographer" before you do any professional work.

I feel badly for the client of anyone who does not learn before they take a job.

[ferrellphotography]

Thank you so much! I just asked a question under Digital where I got feedback like why would I shoot something thats like once in a lifetime without knowing what I was doing? I was having questions about the quality settings...and then came across yours. I have alot to learn with my camera, but its like I told this one guy, my first wedding I shot, turned out great, and well I didnt mess with any of the settings because of that reason. So when I go to ask one simple question of is there one better than the other in order to not have so much editing afterwards, I get harped on. I want advice, but people on here can be so cruel at times. Ya know? Anyways thank you for putting this out there. Take Care!!

[mister_lane]

I have to disagree. You're always shooting RAW, you don't have a choice. You're just choosing to use the RAW converter in your camera instead of the one on your computer. It's universally not as good - it's embedded firmware versus dedicated software on a GPU. Plus once you learn to use RAW you can go back and make your old photos better; as well as take advantage of RAW processing advances years in the future.

 

Example:

 

A slightly overexposed RAW photo that uses the camera's auto settings, processed in CS2, versus the same image converted in-camera to JPG on "auto", will look enormously different. The CS2 one will look way better, because CS2 doesn't discard non-overexposed color channels on a pixel where one channel is overexposed, whereas the in-camera converter in a Nikon, Sony, or Canon body will discard the information and render the pixel as 255/255/255 : all white - just because one channel is overexposed. Try this yourself with a tripod. Just clicking through on "auto" and shooting RAW makes a huge difference in picture quality.

 

Beginners are going to get hurt paying attention to this post. )-:

[jenseay]

"One should not be learning when they are doing a professional job."

 

Wow... I think I know what you intend to say here (that a person should learn their trade before being paid to do it) but your intent and your message are not in sync here, IMHO. I'm CONSTANTLY learning new skills WHILE I'm photographing weddings. As a school teacher, I see the value in being a lifelong learner, and find this sentence disturbing (sorry, I wasn't sure of the correct word for how it made me feel...this is the best I could come up with).

 

Jen

[fotografz]

I think the spirit of Jason's suggestion is a good one, I just may disagree with the specific

approach of shoooting jpgs that's attached to the suggestion.

 

Learning proper exposure techniques should be a primary goal of a beginner. If nothing

more, this thread offers a caution to those learning the basics to NOT rely on the latitude

RAW files provide compared to jpgs.

 

Like Jason, many long time film shooters were shocked by the relative lack of exposure

latitude when switching to digital ... especially in the area of overexposure.

 

Now, setting aside doing images for the client, there is one more benefit of correcting

images initially in RAW form and storing at least key selects with that attached exif

correction data...

 

Technology seems to be moving swiftly toward 16 bit processing and printing. As many of

you have seen, PS has increased the amount of tools available for 16 bit files. That will

continue, and what we think is excellent now will become mediocre in future. Saving the

original RAW files allows one to go back and take advantage of more recent advancements.

 

IMO, those advancements will be mind boggling over the next few years, and I want to go

back and take advantage of every single one of those leaps forward on my best past work.

[William Michael]

Mr Hinds Wrote:

> I'm putting this in the Wedding forum simply because there are tons of new wedding photographers that visit this site for advice <

 

My Comment:

 

Most interesting reason for placing a topic so fundamental to Digital Photography.

 

I would prefer the sentence to read:

 

`I`m putting this in the Wedding forum simply because there are tons of people aspiring to learn wedding photographer, that visit this site for advice.`

 

But, I believe your sentence is correct, sadly, there are in fact many new active professional wedding photographers visiting these pages for fundamental advice.

 

 

My Comments other comments:

 

MR LEVINE:

> Shooting JPEGs is to "pigeonhole" your self into a painted corner. And most pro labs will laugh at you come printing time. <

 

Agree 100%

 

MS STOCK

> One should not be learning when they are doing a professional job.<

 

Could have been a poor choice of opening sentence, for the opinion you wanted to convey.

 

> You need to be the "better photographer" before you do any professional work. I feel badly for the client of anyone who does not learn before they take a job.<

 

This sentence clarified your thoughts. I agree, and Wedding Photography is one sphere where there can be little error with basics.

 

 

Ms SEAY

> I`m CONSTANTLY learning new skills WHILE I'm photographing weddings. As a (school) teacher, I see the value in being a lifelong learner.<

 

I agree 100%.

 

Regards WW

[mike_pallas]

Interesting thread. I've been a film shooter most of my career and gradually phased in digital usage by using it towards the end of a wedding and testing customers with prints. I used JPEG then and continue to do so.

 

Why?

 

I don't shoot thousands of poorly composed photos at a wedding. At the most I provide about 200 well composed images. So I know what I'm doing, monitor results continuously and take readings with a hand held meter. Before the bride arrives I am shooting candids of the guests pinning down the exposure and so on.

 

I think I would use RAW for one off photos such as landscapes etc. However RAW for weddings is too much processing power and too much long term memory storage. It's also too much post processing work. Many digital users are working at the budget end of the market and use digital to maximise profit. If you factor in all the PP you do with RAW you have to ask yourself. Am I getting paid enough?