# RAW vs JPEG Debate



## benjikan (Jul 12, 2007)

Hello all...

The RAW vs JPEG Debate is one that has been raging for quite some time now. I wish to share with you some of my own observations and how it might aid in your decision as to which to choose. It will not be a technical discourse as I am not in a position to do so. It will be based on my observations and how the decision will affect the final outcome i.e. the print media.

RAW is akin to a recording that is done directly to Pro Tools without compression and JPEG is what that recording might sound like after converting the signal for MP3 listening. That signal has been compressed and as a result has lost some of the high end and low end definition as well as the dynamic range. This analogy can be directly transposed to visual media. In photography RAW is the pure unadulterated signal. Now why would anyone even consider JPEG unless they felt that their image was not worthy of that kind of rendition. It should not come down to a question of memory or cost of storage etc. It is an image that merits the best resolution possible that may in the future be used for a support that needs the kind of resolution that only RAW can provide. 

You may think.."Well it is only a snap shot." Well todays snapshot may be tomorrows historical archive. You are leaving a trace of history for future generations to view. Give your image the respect it deserves. Shoot in RAW...


----------



## ksmattfish (Jul 12, 2007)

I shoot raw myself, even for family snapshots.  I like the workflow and the flexibility in post processing, but I can understand the reasons many pros and enthusiasts choose to shoot jpeg.  Jpeg vs. raw debate is similar to Nikon vs. Canon (or Pentax!), and slides vs. negs.  These are choices individual photographers make based on what works best for them.  Advantages that are important to me, are not important to the next guy.  Disadvantages that don't bother me are deal breakers for another photographer.  It's been demonstrated to me that similarly processed prints from properly exposed jpeg shots look just as good as prints from raw captures.


----------



## zendianah (Jul 12, 2007)

Thank you benjikan for your in depth explanation. For me, since I am not even close to pro status that RAW is more forgiving. I can play with exposure and WB.


----------



## Alex_B (Jul 12, 2007)

I am totally on the RAW side. Today's sensors are so limited in dynamical range, that I could not live without it for contrasty scenes. Also I always do the whitebalance after the shoot.

So it is RAW even for snapshots.


----------



## PatriK-b (Jul 12, 2007)

ksmattfish said:


> Jpeg vs. raw debate is similar to Nikon vs. Canon (or Pentax!), and slides vs. negs.


I don't totally agree.
Nikon vs Canon vs Pentax vs... is like a car vs another car.
RAW vs Jpg is more like a car vs a motorbike.

I always shoot RAW too. I can't simply see any advantages shooting jpg. You can easily get jpg from raw within seconds by pressing 'convert' button without changing any parameter if needed. What I also never do because, at least, I want to adjust WB, sharpness or exposure correction for every photo or set of photos.

The only two situations where I could use jpg is: deeper buffering for continuous shooting during sport events or running out of storage space on cards.


----------



## Big Mike (Jul 12, 2007)

> You can easily get jpg from raw within seconds by pressing 'convert' button without changing any parameter if needed


A very good point that I try to emphasise when the debate pops up again and again.  In this vein, I would say that comparing RAW & JPEG is like buying unsliced bread vs sliced bread.  The sliced bread is quick and easy but with an unsliced loaf, you can cut it exactly how you want to.  There is an extra step for you to do...but you gain full control over the process instead of just taking what they give you.


----------



## Alex_B (Jul 12, 2007)

Big Mike said:


> A very good point that I try to emphasise when the debate pops up again and again.  In this vein, I would say that comparing RAW & JPEG is like buying unsliced bread vs sliced bread.  The sliced bread is quick and easy but with an unsliced loaf, you can cut it exactly how you want to.  There is an extra step for you to do...but you gain full control over the process instead of just taking what they give you.



only that RAW to JPG conversion is much easier for me than slicing bread! :lmao:


----------



## EOS_JD (Jul 12, 2007)

PatriK-b said:


> You can easily get jpg from raw within seconds by pressing 'convert' button without changing any parameter if needed.


 
If you shoot say 900 jpgs at a wedding converting them all does take time.

I must agree though that I shoot almost 100% RAW. Convertion is getting quicker all the time and Lightroom has helped me a lot in this regard.


----------



## sabbath999 (Jul 12, 2007)

Before I begin: I am NOT recommending that people take this as advice, or saying that I do it the right way. I simply present my workflow example so you can see how I do things... I do not shoot what most people shoot. Furthermore, I do things radically different than most people who DO shoot what I shoot. Many of the more snobby people consider me a total no talent hack when they hear my workflow... and I couldn't care less.

Personally, for most stuff I shoot JPEG... simply because I shoot a FRIGHTENING number of pictures when I shoot, and they are not "mission critical".

I take pictures of animals, strictly for hobby and educational purposes. I don't do this for pay.

Example: my current project is my Zoopictures (clicky) website. Often, we (my wife and I) have about 4 hours to attempt to get as many good animal pictures as I can while walking over pathways that may cover up to 100 acres. We will often do two zoos a day, and we will have driven up to 500 miles to do them... so speed is important.

We will shoot something from several different angles, and take many exposures trying to capture the exact moment.

It is not uncommon to take 2000-3000 exposures during the day per shooter, times two.

I know a lot of film guys would call us hacks, and say I should just wait for the proper moment, the proper lighting, the proper composition, blah blah... but I never see these folks producing better animal pictures than we do, in the limited amount of time that we have. Sure, if a person stands all day waiting for a particular event to happen (lion roaring, etc.) he or she can get an outstanding picture, and only have to take 20 or 30 images to get it. But that is not our game.

We try to get as many animals as we can, to give people who look at our site a fair representation of what they can expect to see if they go to a particular zoo.

About 70 percent of the stuff is thrown away out of hand, much of them while still in camera as we are driving home or to the next zoo. 

I know this sounds like a really odd way to go about getting pictures, but it works.

It wouldn't work with RAW, at least with the equipment that I have. First, my D80 chokes after about 9 frames of shooting RAW continously, and we use some of the fastest cards on the market. Second, a 4 gig card gives you about 500 shots more or less if you shoot raw... so I would have to carry around 10 or so of these things just for a normal day for the two of us... EXPENSIVE... and third, it is very difficult if not impossible to tell the difference in image quality.

I do virtually no postprocessing. If I don't get it right in the camera, I throw it away. About all I do is crop. 

I often print my pictures as large as 24x20, and they look outstanding (the print quality and sharpness). If my pictures look good on the screen, and on the wall, why in the world would I care that I didn't do it the "pro" way.

To me, the proof is in the pudding. Do the pictures look good when they hang on the wall in big print sizes. JPEG prints every bit as good as RAW if the exposure and the sharpness is correct to start with. If I am not sure about the exposure when I am shooting, I simply bracket.


----------



## Jon, The Elder (Jul 12, 2007)

I find that the word "debate" doesn't really apply to this topic.  You can't debate that there is more information contained in a RAW file than in a high level .Jpeg

What is under 'debate' is wether or not the extra file size/storage/time/processing and resultant image is worthwhile to the shooter for whatever reason.

I shoot for money.  I shoot horse events and farm/training facilities.

My arena shots are at most 8x10's with an occasional 11x14.  A large percentage are the old 4x6 or 5x7.  Jpg's are just fine for this with my gear.
Now, posed shots and farm shots represent a larger potential sale price.  Add to this a travel time of 2 hours or so one way.  Re-do's are either costly to me or out of the question.

After 40+ years in serious photography, I've learned to eliminate as many potential problem areas as I can think of.  In this case, RAW becomes just common sense.

My cameras are setup to switch instantly from one format to the other with a simple press of a button.  Why not have that option available to me?

Just can't see where there is a debate on this one.


----------



## Big Mike (Jul 12, 2007)

Good point...it's not really a debate over which is 'better'.   The important issue is what is best for each photographer.  In Sabbath's case...it looks like JPEG is the best option for him.  For (I would think) most photographers, RAW would be the best option.

I think a big part of the 'debate' stems from the learning curve and the workflow of different photographers.  For example, I switched from mostly JPEG to mostly RAW when I started using better software and spent some time learning how to use it.


----------



## ANDS! (Jul 12, 2007)

I shoot JPEG's because I shoot for myself first - others later.  

Someone who doesn't have the luxory of going back and grabbing "that shot" to correct errors, would be silly to shoot in anything other than RAW.


----------



## sothoth (Jul 12, 2007)

If you're perfect all the time, maybe JPG is OK.  As for me, I screw up more often than I get it right, so RAW is a must.  JPGs are very unforgiving when you make major changes to contrast, brightness, color saturation, or exposure.  

I was recently travelling and did a lot of exposure bracketing for landscape shots.  I found this was not all that necessary since changing the exposure levels is easy if you're dealing with RAW images.  For example, I looked at an image I shot a 1 stop lower than the light meter suggested and it was indistinguishable from the one I took at the suggested exposure but darkened using my camera's software on the RAW image.

I know there are limits to what will still look OK, but doing the same thing with the JPG version of the same shots (I shoot RAW + JPG) seemed to lose a lot of the detail when converting up or down even just one stop.

This is just my 2 cents, but it seems to concur very nicely with what others are saying about the RAW format.  Unless you have a 256mb card, RAW is a much safer bet.

My analogy to the JPG v RAW debate is that shooting in JPG mode is like travelling to from the US to Europe and only bringing shorts and t-shirts.  Maybe you'll be happy you didn't pack warmer clothes if every day is warm, but maybe you'll get there and the weather ends up being very cold and all you've got are skimpy clothes and goosebumps.


----------



## Jon, The Elder (Jul 12, 2007)

> I think a big part of the 'debate' stems from the learning curve and the workflow of different photographers. For example, I switched from mostly JPEG to mostly RAW when I started using better software and spent some time learning how to use it.


 
Exactly.


----------



## sabbath999 (Jul 12, 2007)

Big Mike said:


> In Sabbath's case...it looks like JPEG is the best option for him.  For (I would think) most photographers, RAW would be the best option.



I totally agree. If I were doing session portraits, shooting weddings or for publication I would shoot them 100 percent RAW. Some shots cannot be recreated or ignored.


----------



## Garbz (Jul 12, 2007)

Taking Ben's original analogy in the studio while working on the sound and adding various effects, mixing, turning knobs, you are often working with PCM audio encoded many times higher than CD and sometimes even DVD-A quality. But in the end when the final gets put on iTunes or something else that uses some compressed form it is often perfectly acceptable for "archival" purposes.

Even though I shoot in RAW the last step of my work flow is to batch convert all my images to Quality 11 JPEGs. The reason being the same as I don't mind using 256+kbps MP3s even though most people who know me consider me an audiophile. The fact is I simply can not tell the difference between a high bitrate mp3 and a CD, just the same as I can not tell the difference between a high quality JPEG and a RAW file.


----------



## benjikan (Jul 14, 2007)

Garbz said:


> Taking Ben's original analogy in the studio while working on the sound and adding various effects, mixing, turning knobs, you are often working with PCM audio encoded many times higher than CD and sometimes even DVD-A quality. But in the end when the final gets put on iTunes or something else that uses some compressed form it is often perfectly acceptable for "archival" purposes.
> 
> Even though I shoot in RAW the last step of my work flow is to batch convert all my images to Quality 11 JPEGs. The reason being the same as I don't mind using 256+kbps MP3s even though most people who know me consider me an audiophile. The fact is I simply can not tell the difference between a high bitrate mp3 and a CD, just the same as I can not tell the difference between a high quality JPEG and a RAW file.



The difference between RAW and JPEG in the K10D is more flagrant.  I was amazed by how much more latitude I had in RAW.  It was like shooting with two entirely different cameras.  The richness of colour the capacity to control fringing CA, especially in the 16-45 and the profound gradation was evident.  No, JPEG is more than 128 kbps in Music.


----------



## jon_k (Jul 14, 2007)

I understand this could be more due to the way my cameras algorithm encodes JPEG than JPEG as a format in itself... but... it saved the day for me didn't it?


----------



## Garbz (Jul 14, 2007)

Yep that looks like the camera's own noise reduction algorithm is pretty poor.

Ben the analogy is still the same. The point of dropping the extra information that is not visible occurs a the last step, and a high quality one ensuring that we are not left with the provided algorithms of normal/basic/fine the camera manufacturer gives us, but instead a 12 point scale in photoshop with additional encoding options. It would be quite different letting the camera convert to JPEG. In fact I must say the D200 is similar. The resulting colours (they are just off in a way I don't know why) and lack of sharpness I get when I shoot straight to JPEG is reasonably poor, even when no post processing is done. I guess I just find Lightroom's algorithms for processing RAW data much more natural. This is apparently something that gives the Fuji cameras an edge over the Nikons even though they seem to be identical in many ways. They produce nicer JPEGs out of the box.


----------



## WingedPower (Jul 14, 2007)

benjikan said:


> Hello all...
> The RAW vs JPEG Debate is one that has been raging for quite some time now.








Raw vs Jpeg is really one of those horses that everyone seems to groan, but enjoy beating... 

As others have pointed out, the "debate" is really about personal choice and workflow, not about the technical merits of the formats. 

But since we are beating the dead beast...

Raw: unadulterated data=more wiggle room/adjustments. 12-14bit/channel data vs 8bit/channel. bigger file size. needs post-conversion. 

JPEG: pre-processed data. magnified noise artifacts. jpeg blocking artifacts. 8bit/channel. smaller file size. can print to printers as-is. easier to use.

Personally, I shoot RAW. Others may opt for JPEG. Seems like the folks who opt for JPEG do so for the following reasons:

- can take more photos per card! (1-6MB vs 9+MB?)
- can take more photos at a time! (20-30 image buffer/infinite buffer instead of say... 6-9 image buffer?)
- dont' want to "post-process" (ah.. raw converters...)
- "just for web" (72dpi... the great equalizer!)
- "just for 4x5, 5x7, 8x10" (With a 7MP jpeg...)
- direct to printer (Huh... doesn't take raw...)

It really comes down to ease of use and one less process/set of tools to learn. Most people who are interested in tweaking their photographs more, are definitely interested in RAW to get the best image they can from their camera, or to avoid known artifacts, or because they want to archive their "Digital negatives".

Okay, gonna wash my hands now.


----------



## MikeR (Jul 14, 2007)

There is no Right or Wrong format. Use whichever you are comfortable with.

I switched over to Raw for a couple of reasons.

1. Greater control over the final results. What this means is that I use software,rather than letting the camera convert it to Jpeg at the time it was shot, based on pre set or user set parameters.

2. Greater control when I need to convert an image to B&W


----------



## RVsForFun (Jul 15, 2007)

...will this debate ever stop? It just keeps going and going and going...

An upcoming debate, just as religious, will be/is the sRGB vs. RGB colorspace issue. Choose one corner, let the fights begin...

I shoot practially 99% JPEG. I've never had a JPEG that would've been improved with RAW, given the overhead, but maybe I'm different. Since I shoot high-volume weddings and have a critical shots-per-card factor (not too high, not too low) JPEG is the best way to manage that, given my exposure techniques.

If you're not shooting high-volume situation, RAW is a good choice. The fact that you can go back to the unprocessed data (that's why it's RAW!) and re-convert to JPEG is a great selling point. As long as you know how proprietary RAW is, have a good archival strategy for a short-lived format like RAW and can handle the overhead, it's a great way to go. Most people should shoot RAW, I suppose.

Having said that, the two highest paid photographers I know, David Ziser and Gary Fong, both shoot JPEG only. Ziser, who gets $25,000 per wedding or bar mitzvah, calls RAW "Really Awful Workflow". Fong, who when he quit doing weddings got over $100,000 per event, will gladly discuss RAW's disadvantages at one of his seminars. Food for thought, folks.

What's important in all respects is the results, RAW, JPEG, DNG or TIFF. If I can achieve a sharp, artifact-free, properly balanced 30x40 by shooting a lowly JPEG then let's leave the name calling out of it, OK?


----------



## MikeR (Jul 15, 2007)

RVsForFun said:


> ...will this debate ever stop? It just keeps going and going and going...
> 
> An upcoming debate, just as religious, will be/is the sRGB vs. RGB colorspace issue. Choose one corner, let the fights begin.
> 
> It'll only stop when we stop feeding into the origianl posters of such questions.


----------



## Garbz (Jul 15, 2007)

RVsForFun said:


> Ziser, who gets $25,000 per wedding or bar mitzvah, calls RAW "Really Awful Workflow".



See this is what I don't get. That quote clearly shows that either a) he is not divulging his reasons, b) has a workflow so centred around applications which do not support RAW, or c) has no idea what he's talking about.

In respect I'll probably say it's option b. If you open your memory card and look them in windows explorer to pick the nice images, then open them in photoshop and have to mess with CameraRAW, then yes RAW is a hell of a problem for you.

But every other way I have seen it done, using actual post processing oriented software like Lightroom (which I use but there are MANY others), the workflow for JPEG and RAW is identical in every way, with the exception that when I twiddle the knobs and move the sliders I get better results from RAW, oh and I get colour temperture values in the colour temp slider, not +1 +2 etc. I honestly believe that people who complain solely about the workflow simply do not know how it is done properly, and I don't care how much they get paid.


----------



## Iron Flatline (Jul 16, 2007)

I work with a lot of event photographers, and not one of them is going to bother to work in RAW. Why? It's just shots of a bunch of suits introducing a new hot strategy or product, some people having a party, or an opening of a store. All their customers are perfectly happy, and they don't have to spend the additional hour or two processing. If you're working an event for 4-5 hours, you're going to come away with around 600 shots. Why process those? Yes, we all know how to batch process, but it still takes time. 

I know several creative photographers, and not one of them would ever shoot in JPG. Why? There is no reason to forego the available data or the ability to change creative direction in the future. If you're shooting creatively you're going to come away with around 600 images, and you're going to want to process those with the most potential. They still wouldn't batch process everything into PSD or JPG, why use up the hard drive space.

Arguing about RAW vs. JPG is like arguing about camera straps or lens caps. Yes, we all have an opinion, and we can't wait to contribute our very important opinions to these very important threads. But seriously, who really cares? The only ones who do are the people who recently became aware of RAW, but after a short while they decide what works best for them.


----------



## jstuedle (Jul 16, 2007)

Jpeg for web work, RAW for anything that matters. Nuff said.


----------



## benjikan (Jul 16, 2007)

In my reality and I preface in my reality, as all of us work under very different circumstances, if I were to present a JPEG to an AD of an AD Agency or Magazine, they would look at me and say, "Ok Kanarek, that's funny, but where is "THE" Image?  If I said "What are you talking about?" They would get extremely nervous and pray that I am pulling their leg...

It is TIFF or PSD from RAW and that "IS" what is expected in my metier.


----------



## Jon, The Elder (Jul 16, 2007)

> I work with a lot of event photographers, and not one of them is going to bother to work in RAW. Why? It's just shots of a bunch of suits introducing a new hot strategy or product, some people having a party, or an opening of a store. All their customers are perfectly happy, and they don't have to spend the additional hour or two processing. If you're working an event for 4-5 hours, you're going to come away with around 600 shots. Why process those? Yes, we all know how to batch process, but it still takes time.


 
Yup !


----------



## danalec99 (Jul 17, 2007)

I shoot RAW because I will have a lossless Tiff at the end of the day.


----------



## ScenicBC (Jul 18, 2007)

There really is no debate if your not shooting RAW, then your shooting subquality photos.  When you shoot JPEG so much useful information gets thrown away, that it seems barbaric.  I use both Photoshop and ACDSee to edit my photos, and I can't count the number of times it has really brought the photo out colour, or helped me clean up an otherwise ruined photo (especially when coupled with HDR).  With over 30 options you can alter your photos with even before their open in Photoshop the power is truly in your hands. And with the price of memory cards (Approx $100 for an 8Gb) it really is a no brainer.  Cheers.


----------



## THORHAMMER (Jul 18, 2007)

I can see both sides, for an agency or something where you are using lights and photoshop you would naturally want to shoot raw. And actually the workflow is not any different editing wise then jpeg if you are using lightroom. Just you have to store the raws and batch what you need out of them, ie psd, tiff, or jpeg. 

I have expiramented in certain situations and found good results with jpg too, I once tried to shoot both at once, the file naming confusion that ensued was nothing short of monumental, Now I just shoot raw and I have gotten so fast with batching similar shots that its ALMOST as fast as jpeg processing, the only real thing that takes more time is the color balance. 

besides that you only save time if you just shoot jpeg and do NOTHING to the shots afterwards but give the files away.

If you are doing a 5K wedding, take the extra few hours and process the raws. Its the best way.


----------



## Jon, The Elder (Jul 18, 2007)

This old bone is getting pretty dry.


----------



## jstuedle (Jul 19, 2007)

Jon said:


> This old bone is getting pretty dry.



Yup. Personal preference. Like the N/C debate, or film/digital, color/B&W and on and on........ We all have our opinions, just like a$$#####.


----------



## JHF Photography (Jul 19, 2007)

Hi,

I've been reading this forum for a few months now, and it's been a great resource (not to mention some VERY interesting discussions!). I finally decided to sign up because I just had to comment on this thread.

KUDOS TO ALL INVOLVED!!!!! This is the most rational, calm, logical, polite Raw/Jpeg thread I have ever seen! It's very refreshing to see this issue discussed without descending into name calling, yelling, and just plain stupidness.

A job well done, everybody.


Jason


----------



## astrocreep96 (Jul 19, 2007)

I shot a combo RAW + JPEG in Peru. Two weeks of shooting and 2,300 pictures later, I'll be damned if I'm editing every one of those. JPEG FTW.


----------



## Stranger (Jul 19, 2007)

i shoot raw for important shots but just snaps i use jpeg fine or normal


----------



## spyder (Jul 19, 2007)

wow, i would write what i do, but you might as well just reread sabbath999's first post(excluding the zoo/subject matter) i use jpeg almost exclusively because i take tons of pictures of each subject and i too delete most while there on my camera. and i also agree that if i were doing portraits weddings etc i would use raw. 

i dont have the time to go through every pictrue and set wb etc.


----------



## jstuedle (Jul 20, 2007)

JHF Photography said:


> Hi,
> 
> I've been reading this forum for a few months now, and it's been a great resource (not to mention some VERY interesting discussions!). I finally decided to sign up because I just had to comment on this thread.
> 
> ...



First, welcome aboard Jason. I'm glad you found us, and that you found us both entertaining and informative. Second, the folks here can be very opinionated, I being one of them. But we also try to be respectful of others and the mods do a good job keeping it that way. Sometimes too good a job, but that's OK as long as we all can say whats on our minds without going over the top. Again, glad you found us, and hope to see you participate with us.


----------



## sothoth (Jul 20, 2007)

astrocreep96 said:


> I shot a combo RAW + JPEG in Peru. Two weeks of shooting and 2,300 pictures later, I'll be damned if I'm editing every one of those. JPEG FTW.


 
Just edit the good ones, keep the rest in JPG.  At least you have the RAWs if you need them, and you can delete them if you don't.


----------



## Eric Piercey (Jul 20, 2007)

Exactly. No need to edit the crap shots. RAW wins. The end. Please close the thread now.


----------



## Jon, The Elder (Jul 20, 2007)

I'll be on a shoot all weekend so be sure to keep this pointless thread going.


----------



## skieur (Jul 20, 2007)

I shoot in both raw and jpeg and sometimes both at the same time.  If it is an important shot then I shoot raw but if speed is important and the end result is web or small format news or public relations folder then I shoot jpeg.  I can also edit jpeg in 16 bit and automatically save in 8 bit jpeg so that I do not lose colour information.  There are also approaches to doing jpeg enlargements with extremely good quality.  If necessary, there are approaches to getting pretty close to RAW quality with jpegs.

skieur


----------



## MikeR (Jul 20, 2007)

Jon said:


> I'll be on a shoot all weekend so be sure to keep this pointless thread going.


 
Don't worry it will still be going on and on and on, 
As long as we arer foolish enough to keep feeding it 

Enjoy the shoot


----------



## sothoth (Jul 21, 2007)

MikeR said:


> it will still be going on and on and on,
> As long as we arer foolish enough to keep feeding it


 
Since this was so fun, I'm strongly considering starting up another thread so we can discuss whether Canon or Nikon is the "better" camera, and maybe another one about whether Tamron is better than Sigma.  I'm still confused about which way to go.  Please help me.


----------



## Iron Flatline (Jul 21, 2007)

I have a Leica Digilux 1 that shoots JPG and TIFF. 

So there.


----------



## MikeR (Jul 21, 2007)

sothoth said:


> Since this was so fun, I'm strongly considering starting up another thread *so we can discuss whether Canon or Nikon is the "better" camera, and maybe another one about whether Tamron is better than Sigma.* I'm still confused about which way to go. Please help me.


 
Then we can post close ups of worthless things like batteries and charts to measure shapness instead of the things we really shoot. I belive the term for this illness is "measurebate" :lmao:


----------



## sothoth (Jul 21, 2007)

Iron Flatline said:


> I have a Leica Digilux 1 that shoots JPG and TIFF.   So there.


 
You Leica people... always bragging about everything German.  Next thing you know, you're going to tell us that Zeiss lenses are good.


----------



## benjikan (Jul 21, 2007)

sothoth said:


> Since this was so fun, I'm strongly considering starting up another thread so we can discuss whether Canon or Nikon is the "better" camera, and maybe another one about whether Tamron is better than Sigma.  I'm still confused about which way to go.  Please help me.



The shape of my index finger is more naturally rounded and therefore better for capturing an image at least 2 nano seconds faster than most people on average..How is that?


----------



## lifeafter2am (Jul 21, 2007)

benjikan said:


> The shape of my index finger is more naturally rounded and therefore better for capturing an image at least 2 nano seconds faster than most people on average..How is that?




I got one better!  My pinkie fingers are crooked (genetic family trait), this allows a tighter fit and better grip on my camera.  I can hold the camera SOOO much longer than any of you!!!  :lmao::lmao:


----------



## Nimitz (Jul 22, 2007)

Ok, I just couldn't resist providing my 2 cents after reading everyone's opinions.  Maybe it's just because I learned photography from someone who has been shooting professionally longer then most of us on this forum have been alive but the one thing he taught me when digitial became of age & pros were switching and/or adding it to their bag of tricks was this:

"Taking an image and then 'fixing' it later in PS is not photography.  Learn how to use light, posing & exposure to create stunning images in the camera - this is photography and BTW, you'll become a better photographer because of it.  Continue to post process to fix your mistakes and you'll never learn anything.  Use all that time you spend sitting in front of a computer using PS to go out and shoot and actually become better at it!"

As a side note, I know most 'younger' folks can't even imagine a world in which technology is not the focus of everything: I-phone, I-pod, 1080 plasma TV, laptops with terabytes of storage ... but its akin to giving a grammer school child a calculator & teaching them how to use it without ever teaching them basic math.  Ever watch a teenager behind the counter at MacDonald's try to make change without looking at what the register said?  

Don't get me wrong - technology is a wonderful thing but I think some times we tend to use it as a shortcut because learning the underlying principles for which technology lets us ignore is hard.  "AstroPhysics for the common man"

enough rambling ...


----------



## brettrobsonphotography (Jul 22, 2007)

Just came past this thread, I shoot in both RAW and JPEG ...reasons being is the shot was crap in JPEG the raw allows me to edit the image settings, ie white balance, exposure, aperture via Lightroom, sometimes I feel this is cheating however well thats 21st century technology for you

Also when doing model shoots its easy to grab the jpegs off the cf media and burn straight to cd


----------



## jstuedle (Jul 23, 2007)

Nimitz said:


> "Taking an image and then 'fixing' it later in PS is not photography.  Learn how to use light, posing & exposure to create stunning images in the camera - this is photography and BTW, you'll become a better photographer because of it.  Continue to post process to fix your mistakes and you'll never learn anything.  Use all that time you spend sitting in front of a computer using PS to go out and shoot and actually become better at it!"



I agree, there is nothing that improves upon getting it right in the camera. This is why I'm a firm believer in teaching a student of photography with a manual film camera and a hand-held light meter. There is nothing that reinforces taking your time and understanding the fundamentals than waiting for that roll of film to come back and finding out you lost the whole roll to some minor thing overlooked. Like shooting ISO 800 at 64.


----------



## guppyman (Jul 28, 2007)

Thanks for the great information here


----------



## Nimitz (Jul 29, 2007)

jstuedle - you are so right.  That is the way I learned to shoot as well.  I doubt too many of the younger folks remember a tennis pro by the name of Bobby Riggs (the famous Billy Jean King match) but even in his fiftys he used to travel around the country and beat so-called tennis pros with a broom just do demonstrate that its not your equipment that makes you a great tennis player but your skills.

I actually read a post a short while ago in a thread which was discussing how a certain style of images were ceated where not one, but several posters 'agreed' that it was post processing because 'you could never capture that type of image with the camera alone".  The images in question were just these close-up black & white portraits with very sharp contrast and hard highlights - very well done - I might add,  but certainly not any PS magic ... just good old fashioned creative photography!


----------



## skieur (Jul 29, 2007)

Nimitz said:


> Ok, I just couldn't resist providing my 2 cents after reading everyone's opinions. Maybe it's just because I learned photography from someone who has been shooting professionally longer then most of us on this forum have been alive but the one thing he taught me when digitial became of age & pros were switching and/or adding it to their bag of tricks was this:
> 
> "Taking an image and then 'fixing' it later in PS is not photography. Learn how to use light, posing & exposure to create stunning images in the camera - this is photography and BTW, you'll become a better photographer because of it. Continue to post process to fix your mistakes and you'll never learn anything. Use all that time you spend sitting in front of a computer using PS to go out and shoot and actually become better at it!"...


 
Well, I have probably been shooting professionally as long or longer than your friend has, and frankly PS is no different than the time that a lot of photographers spent in the darkroom. We did composites and multiple exposures and special effects and much more than simply correcting mistakes in the darkroom.  Photoshop is used more to correct the limitations of digital processing than it is to correct mistakes.  Irrespective, the use of Photoshop trains the eye to look carefully at colour, focus, contrast, resolution etc. and if you learn it by using Photoshop that skilll is transfered to being used when you look through the viewfinder.  A photographer who rationalizes being perhaps computer illiterate will not become a better photographer by ignoring Photoshop and simply shooting digital shots with a camera.  

skieur


----------



## jstuedle (Jul 29, 2007)

Photoshop IMO is not for fixing the image, but for enhancing it. We all should strive to get the best image we can out of the camera. Do it right in the "box" and the post work-flow will go much easier and much more quickly.


----------



## Jon, The Elder (Jul 30, 2007)

> A photographer who rationalizes being perhaps computer illiterate will not become a better photographer by ignoring Photoshop and simply shooting digital shots with a camera.


 
I have to agree. As you progress in the craft, many people come to appreciate the extra latitude that shooting RAW gives the photographer.

As dozens have mentioned (myself included), it really depends on what your final goal is for the finished image. See  #'s 6,10,11

Raw gives you that little extra 'edge' in post processing which is a advantage in many cases.

The more you get into serious digital photography, the sooner you realize that computer use is a necessary discipline that goes hand-in-hand with the photo taking portion of the entire process.


----------



## benjikan (Jul 31, 2007)

skieur said:


> Well, I have probably been shooting professionally as long or longer than your friend has, and frankly PS is no different than the time that a lot of photographers spent in the darkroom. We did composites and multiple exposures and special effects and much more than simply correcting mistakes in the darkroom.  Photoshop is used more to correct the limitations of digital processing than it is to correct mistakes.  Irrespective, the use of Photoshop trains the eye to look carefully at colour, focus, contrast, resolution etc. and if you learn it by using Photoshop that skilll is transfered to being used when you look through the viewfinder.  A photographer who rationalizes being perhaps computer illiterate will not become a better photographer by ignoring Photoshop and simply shooting digital shots with a camera.
> 
> skieur



I totally agree with your analogy...


----------



## RacePhoto (Jul 31, 2007)

No debate. Raw is better.

I shoot sports, I shoot hundreds or thousands of pictures in a weekend. I see no use in batch post processing, since I don't have time to edit and process each individual image. I shoot JPG.

I delete a good 1/3rd of the images, just because I reject them or they are flawed. Another 1/3rd go into the, maybe bin. Then I have a few hundred to look at and pick the best 5 or 10. THEN I edit those "good" photos.

How much space will 2000 raw pictures take vs 2000 JPGs?

Did I mention, RAW is better for many applications and editing control. Just not for me. :thumbup:


----------

