# Does Shooting in RAW Matter Given My Workflow?



## JoeW (Dec 9, 2018)

Let me explain:  I'm not asking generally (or if for you) shooting in RAW is a good thing.  I've always been an advocate of shooting in RAW (and I almost always do--except when I'm shooting stuff for my church and they don't want good photos, just snapshots they can use for sermons or church newsletters or the website--so how fast I can get them edits matters most).

Any rate, what I am asking is this:  I shot an event for my church (in jpeg) then a day later went to shoot some stuff on my own.  I stupidly forgot to switch back to RAW (because it's usually a default setting for me).  I was initially disgusted with myself--now I've got an SD card full of jpeg files--bah!  But then I got to thinking.

My usually workflow is:  shoot in RAW, identify files I want to edit, import them to Affinity Photo, "Develop" the photo (which in AP means take the RAW file and make edits--which almost never involve any serious work on white balance--I try to get that right with the shot rather than post-production).  I'm always doing some sharpening (b/c it's shot in a RAW format), some cropping to alter the composition a bit, some healing brush to eliminate a few distractions (damn power line and how the hell did that coke can get in the foreground), maybe some filter affects (adding grain or removing haze, etc.), usually a little with shadow or highlights, usually a little around color, occasionally playing with DoF settings, then exporting as a Jpeg.

But I got to thinking--what editing am I doing that needs to be done in RAW?  If I shot in jpeg I'd lost a lot of more sophisticated editing options and white balance stuff but I'm rarely doing that.  And if I shot in jpeg, it would save the time of "Developing" (ie: reading the RAW file) and also having to sharpen every RAW file.

Thoughts?  I'd welcome advice.  Because right now if because of my principles (RAW is best for everything I shoot) I'm significantly adding time to my workflow.


----------



## tirediron (Dec 9, 2018)

One of the main benefits in my mind, of shooting in raw is the ease and accuracy with which you can adjust white balance.  If that doesn't matter, it may not be a big deal for you. Why not shoot RAW+JPG; you can then discard whichever you don't need, and you don't have to worry about forgetting to adjust a setting.


----------



## 480sparky (Dec 9, 2018)

If your ultimate aim is to sell images, then you should be shooting raw.  Some clients will want to purchase a raw file, or request an edit to an image you took that needs the data depth raw files have.


----------



## DarkShadow (Dec 9, 2018)

Shoot raw and jpeg easy solution pick one or the other done.


----------



## Jeff15 (Dec 10, 2018)

Shoot both raw and jpeg, sorted.......


----------



## Overread (Dec 10, 2018)

Barring the white balance, which Tired already mentioned, a lot of the time you might not need all that a RAW file offers. Same as you often wont' need everything your photo editing software can do. If you shoot good and the light isn't too challenging then a lot of photos are fairly easy to edit using quite simple tools.

But there's always potential. With a RAW you give yourself full potential for that time when the last great shot of the day is in difficult lighting or when you need to push and pull the shadows and bright areas more so than normal. If you always shoot in JPEG then you've got to remember to change into RAW before taking those kind of photo, which means you must both think of it in the moment and have time to make the change - which honestly you often won't as you also might not even realise you need a RAW until you get back to the computer.

So many times its easier to leave teh camera in RAW and have the maximum potential. 


Many times I see people shooting in JPEG and they are pros is when they are shooting an event, like sports, and the photos are needed by editors/clients in that very moment. Ergo where there is no time at all for any proper editing, or the use is editorial and there are rules on what can and can't be done anyway. So in those conditions JPEG gives speed and, with a smaller size, faster transfer speeds (eg email or uploading to online servers/website).


----------



## greybeard (Dec 10, 2018)

If jpeg gives you enough editing options for what you do, then shoot jpeg  If not, then shoot raw.  If you are conflicted about it, shoot both jpeg+raw.


----------



## JoeW (Dec 10, 2018)

Thanks for all the comments folks.  I have 3 bodies:  D600, D4, and D800.  So 2 of them have different card slots (and thus require 2 different card readers).  The SD card will go in to my laptop easily enough.  But the CF and XQD cards each use different readers.  So shooting RAW and Jpeg is more of a hassle for me (unless it's my D600--two SD slots).  

If the primary value of shooting in RAW is going to be white balance or managing extreme lighting situations, then most of my indoor shooting can be done Jpeg I think.  Anyway, I'm still pondering this.  Thanks for the input.


----------



## tirediron (Dec 10, 2018)

Shoot RAW+JPG to the same card.


----------



## Derrel (Dec 10, 2018)

I think it depends quite a bit on the type of photos being made. One time I shot an on-location, studio-flash-lighted session, and did the first hour or so in JPEG-only! Oh....I was upset with myself when I discovered that about halfway through the shoot. But you know what? I've been trying to get things right in-camera for years, and the SOOC JPEG images were quite good, and I had plenty of editing leeway. I had shot everything with what happened to be a good white balance setting, and exposures were pretty generous. Somehow, I had gotten the D3x slid off of RAW+JPEG to JPEG-only. But...it worked out okay.

On the other hand, if you shoot in tricky lighting conditions, where you might need to lift the shadows up a lot, or monkey around a lot with the highlights, or if the white balance is critical and might need to be re-set quite substantially, a raw image is really so,so much better.

As far as RAW+JPEG...I now have the D610 and the D800...the 610 has dual SD slots, the D800 shoots to SD and Compact Flash. Why shoot in raw?

See this page, and click around a bit...pretty diverse bunch of "looks" that would be easily applied to a Nikon NEF file.

Nikon Picture Control Editor


----------



## JoeW (Dec 10, 2018)

tirediron said:


> Shoot RAW+JPG to the same card.


Ah...got it.


----------



## JoeU (Mar 2, 2019)

I'm interested in your ‘final’ decision here. One aspect of Raw format that I haven't seen mentioned here is that it has a very wide color gamut. I readily admit to being ancolor snob. But if you can make jpeg only work for you, that's awesome in terms of both time-saving and storage.


----------



## Scott Whaley (Mar 3, 2019)

I have been posting a lot of photos on this forum that my wife took while in Africa in January.  She shoots jpeg only and does not even know what RAW is.  I have been able to go in and edit and even remove shadows from her photos.  I am considering shooting in jpeg from now on too.


----------



## AlanKlein (Mar 3, 2019)

While I shoot Raw + Jpeg, and only for home non-pro use like slide shows or posting on the web, I mainly wind up using the jpegs.  But there are always a few that I use the Raws because of lighting issues when I shot them.  For the most part, Jpeg is good enough. 99% of people won't notice.


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 3, 2019)

JoeU said:


> I'm interested in your ‘final’ decision here. One aspect of Raw format that I haven't seen mentioned here is that it has a very wide color gamut.



Ultimately your photo has to reach finished form. If it's a color print the final color gamut of the printer inks determines the possible color in your photo. If your photo's final form is electronic display (monitor, phone, etc.) then the color gamut of the display becomes the determinant. In RGB form a photo must be assigned a color space which at that stage in the process becomes a limiting determinant of what color is possible. A photo has to be white balanced which is a major step in determining what colors will be possible in the final photo. All of these stages occur in sequence. It's a process of reduction and in any such process the final outcome is a function of how you control the process.

1. White balance set.
2. Color space assigned.
3. Possible color space conversion.
4. Likely color coercion to limited display gamut.

Overriding the above process is the question of any editing you would like to apply to the image and ramifications of where in the process any editing takes place.

Raw files have no white balance set and no color space assigned. As such you attain access to the above process at the beginning if you work with a raw file. JPEGs from the camera require the camera software to complete steps 1 and 2 above. Once those steps have been completed they can't be undone without starting over with the raw file. In other words the camera makes baked in choices that are final -- you can never back up behind those choices to effect a change if you begin access to the process after steps 1 and 2.

Joe



JoeU said:


> I readily admit to being ancolor snob. But if you can make jpeg only work for you, that's awesome in terms of both time-saving and storage.


----------



## JoeU (Mar 3, 2019)

All true. Personally, I work from the Raw file 90% of the time, and I do my wb and color correction (and in fact, most of my pp in general) in the color mode that most people try to actively avoid: Lab color. 

Why? Because I do my pp in Photoshop. When you tell PS to convert from one color profile to another, PS takes the working space, converts it to Lab color, then converts the Lab image to the destination spce. If your working space is Lab, you've already taken control of 50 % of that conversion. And if you tell PS to clip the results of your edits to the possible combinations of the destination space, then you see what the conversion results are going to be before you ever make the conversion. (with a bit of minor variance). 

Told you I was a color snob.


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 3, 2019)

JoeU said:


> All true. Personally, I work from the Raw file 90% of the time, and I do my wb and color correction (and in fact, most of my pp in general) in the color mode that most people try to actively avoid: Lab color.



White Balance is done during the raw conversion process -- a raw file can't be demosaiced without WB values supplied. Lab color as a working space is only available after the raw file has been converted to an RGB image.

I didn't know most people actively avoid Lab color. I've never actively avoided Lab color. I do try & avoid processing my photos using a workflow that isn't 100% non-destructive and non-linearly re-editable so I try and avoid pixel editors like Photoshop which I normally succeed in doing.

Joe



JoeU said:


> Why? Because I do my pp in Photoshop. When you tell PS to convert from one color profile to another, PS takes the working space, converts it to Lab color, then converts the Lab image to the destination spce. If your working space is Lab, you've already taken control of 50 % of that conversion. And if you tell PS to clip the results of your edits to the possible combinations of the destination space, then you see what the conversion results are going to be before you ever make the conversion. (with a bit of minor variance).
> 
> Told you I was a color snob.


----------



## JoeU (Mar 3, 2019)

Well my apologies then. In my experience, when I tell people I do my color processing in Lab mode, they react as if I'd just told them I encourage my children to play on the freeway.

I think I'm going to like it here.


----------



## BananaRepublic (Mar 5, 2019)

JoeW said:


> Let me explain:  I'm not asking generally (or if for you) shooting in RAW is a good thing.  I've always been an advocate of shooting in RAW (and I almost always do--except when I'm shooting stuff for my church and they don't want good photos, just snapshots they can use for sermons or church newsletters or the website--so how fast I can get them edits matters most).
> 
> Any rate, what I am asking is this:  I shot an event for my church (in jpeg) then a day later went to shoot some stuff on my own.  I stupidly forgot to switch back to RAW (because it's usually a default setting for me).  I was initially disgusted with myself--now I've got an SD card full of jpeg files--bah!  But then I got to thinking.
> 
> ...



You may not need RAW in reality but to me its like cutting a piece of timber, better to cut long and then shave the excess rather then be caught short.

The thing with raw +jpeg I found is that Im left with a tonne more files which invariably I delete on mass rather then the tedium of going through.


----------



## Rinderart (Mar 21, 2019)

Hmmmm. working Pro for Longer than I care to admit. actually 60 Years. and Been Teaching 12 years and sell In High end Galleries and doing Stock and  very High end clients, Worldwide and museums for decades  etc.... PS expert and original Tester  of Photoshop in the beginning with Tommy Knoll.
I shoot Jpeg. I Know raw and Understand it as well as anyone. This is My Job. which means I learned How to shoot long before this debate. well.....useless debate., Understanding WB,Exposure,processing and so on and so on. Im not here to argue about this because Im sick of doing it and that was years ago.

You wanna twiddle your Profit away. go for it. I teach to get it right In Camera like we had to do since Day One.. seems Like a no Brainer to me. and this is not 2001 and we really don't need to argue about it. See it and shoot it right.Period. Learn that.
Look at My Site www.Rinderart.com
And learn to see before all the Nonsense. And you twiddle away your Life processing a Image for Gods sake. Theres enough Info in a Jpeg to do whatever, I shoot Jpeg, And transfer to Tiff as My master.. I'll put mine Up against anyone. Theres simply no need Guys.The Jpeg /Raw debate ended 10 years ago.
This is not being against god or something. My Jpegs do quite well. enough to have a nice House In Beverly Hills and a beautiful studio and sell In Galleries with Huge clients. what More do ya need??? Im Not Bragging Guys. It is what it is.I've done  3 Nat geographic covers and 100's of Other covers..The Real Truth About JPEG images

I go to Gallery shows a LOT. Never stood in front of a Piece and said...Nice Raw.And seen all The masters Old and new.
Doesn't matter. The Impact of the Image is what matters.That happens at time of exposure for most part.just a few Pics out of about 130,000 working.


----------



## Dao (Mar 22, 2019)

Here is what I think.    It all comes down to work flow.   
1. Shoot raw
2. Import photos (I use LR)
3. POST process
4. Mass Export JPEG.

OP, If you shoot jpeg for the reason of save time on POST or all photos were great already with the POST done by the camera itself, then you can just skip step 3.   Just do Import -> mass export JPEG. It should not take too much of your time.  However, you still have the luxury of getting it right after the shoot.   Especially for fast moving events in which the camera sometimes may not do a good job on some auto stuff (i.e. white balance, spot metering)  and miss couple photos.

Again, it is just addressing OP's concern on shoot jpeg so that he can save time while prefer shooting RAW.


----------



## Soocom1 (Mar 22, 2019)

Rinderart said:


> Hmmmm. working Pro for Longer than I care to admit. actually 60 Years. and Been Teaching 12 years and sell In High end Galleries and doing Stock and  very High end clients, Worldwide and museums for decades  etc.... PS expert and original Tester  of Photoshop in the beginning with Tommy Knoll.
> I shoot Jpeg. I Know raw and Understand it as well as anyone. This is My Job. which means I learned How to shoot long before this debate. well.....useless debate., Understanding WB,Exposure,processing and so on and so on. Im not here to argue about this because Im sick of doing it and that was years ago.
> 
> You wanna twiddle your Profit away. go for it. I teach to get it right In Camera like we had to do since Day One.. seems Like a no Brainer to me. and this is not 2001 and we really don't need to argue about it. See it and shoot it right.Period. Learn that.
> ...


I agree with a fair amount of what your saying. 
from the other end of the spectrum here (non pro and I don't sell anything), but I shot RAW when i first had my M 7D and and early on DID see a difference in actual quality. 
But the MP count and the fact that newer types of hardware and software has taken into account what people do with photos these days means that its no longer a needs. 

I do usually fire off in RAW and when necessary convert down to JPEG or TIFF as I desire. But because most of my work stys at home and only occasionally worms its way out, I will shoot jpeg for those reasons. 

IMO if it gets the job done, do it. 

Why worry about it?


----------



## Rinderart (Mar 22, 2019)

Soocom1 said:


> Rinderart said:
> 
> 
> > Hmmmm. working Pro for Longer than I care to admit. actually 60 Years. and Been Teaching 12 years and sell In High end Galleries and doing Stock and  very High end clients, Worldwide and museums for decades  etc.... PS expert and original Tester  of Photoshop in the beginning with Tommy Knoll.
> ...


Well said. never met a client,  Or site that wanted a raw files. and If they did. I wouldn't give it to them. Tiff is My master.I'll put my work up against anyones as per subject. Bottom Line...Do what ya want. I have to process and move on. Im simply not gonna twiddle with a Raw file. Never heard of or never said....."Nice raw"...LOL


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 22, 2019)

Folks get the whole raw/JPEG difference and rationale confused all the time. There's nothing wrong with JPEGs. JPEG compression is great and my finished photos end up as JPEGs. I print JPEGs all the time and you can't tell the difference. So it's not about JPEG compression -- that's a valuable feature. "Raw processing gives me more flexibility in case I screw up." Don't screw up. I don't shoot raw because I need to cover my butt in case I screw up.

It's about extended capability. *I shoot raw so I can take photos that JPEG only shooters just can't take at all*. I do that regularly and I expect to be able to do that. The "get it right in camera" myth is a myth because unless you're setting up the lighting in a studio, you have to deal with the light as is out there in the world. Often it's a good match for the processing capabilities of the camera JPEG software but just as often it is not. As frequently noted the comparison between transparency and negative film is appropriate. Transparency film has to be right straight from camera so there's little room for error. When people make that comparison they always leave off what should be the next sentence: And so adverse lighting frequently shuts down the option to shoot transparency film entirely. Negative film however can be taken into the darkroom where the adverse lighting condition can be worked with and overcome. Negative film can be used successfully over a wider range of lighting conditions.

So going all the way back to the OP's original question and reapplying that question to myself the answer is absolutely yes. I'm not at all willing to limit what I shoot to only the photos JPEG shooters can take.

Joe


----------



## Dave442 (Mar 22, 2019)

I started shooting in Raw about three months after buying LR3. It just made sense to me that my workflow has an Archive file type and a Developed file type. In the end I found if I just stuck with Raw then it speed up my workflow.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 22, 2019)

This post still has legs!


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 22, 2019)

Rinderart said:


> And the debate goes On....LOL thats cool. Love to see the finished work. thats where it is and it's gonna be JPG anyway..I have personally Found from 100's of students. They shoot raw Because someone told them to. "The Digital negative" "The store Salesman" and all that. Same Guy that said use a UV filter On your Lens....LOL Like said. I got No problem with it. And the students I've had  That come here to learn studio work and Photoshop  said They wanna shoot Raw. I always say Great. But do me a favor and shoot Both. They do and In 12 years and 592 People coming here from around the world Not one leaves here after learning Processing is still shooting Raw.



I'm not following -- they learn Processing and that experience convinces them to shoot JPEG? Why? They decide after learning Processing that they don't want to do Processing?

Joe


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 22, 2019)

Ysarex said:


> Folks get the whole raw/JPEG difference and rationale confused all the time. There's nothing wrong with JPEGs. JPEG compression is great and my finished photos end up as JPEGs. I print JPEGs all the time and you can't tell the difference. So it's not about JPEG compression -- that's a valuable feature. "Raw processing gives me more flexibility in case I screw up." Don't screw up. I don't shoot raw because I need to cover my butt in case I screw up.
> 
> It's about extended capability. *I shoot raw so I can take photos that JPEG only shooters just can't take at all*. I do that regularly and I expect to be able to do that. The "get it right in camera" myth is a myth because unless you're setting up the lighting in a studio, you have to deal with the light as is out there in the world. Often it's a good match for the processing capabilities of the camera JPEG software but just as often it is not. As frequently noted the comparison between transparency and negative film is appropriate. Transparency film has to be right straight from camera so there's little room for error. When people make that comparison they always leave off what should be the next sentence: And so adverse lighting frequently shuts down the option to shoot transparency film entirely. Negative film however can be taken into the darkroom where the adverse lighting condition can be worked with and overcome. Negative film can be used successfully over a wider range of lighting conditions.
> 
> ...



I had to go out after the above post and didn't have more time. It would help of course to present an example of; "*I shoot raw so I can take photos that JPEG only shooters just can't take at all."* So a couple weeks ago I got out for a day trip with my camera. On that trip I took 1/2 a dozen photos that JPEG shooters just can't take at all. I'm not going to give up taking those photos so I can shoot JPEG -- why should I? I took this photo of the old Winfield ferry:



 

Here's the JPEG the camera created for that exposure:





The JPEG is of course a crash and burn with the diffuse highlights nuked to oblivion. That's understandable since I took the photo with the EC set to +1.3. I expose for the sensor in my camera and I knew I'd want as much tonal info as possible in the above photo. From the shadow detail under the front of the boat to the highlights in the clouds there's 9.5 stops of tonal data. I used all of it in my version of the photo. A JPEG shooter simply can't have that much data.

So if the JPEG shooter wanted to take this photo they'd have to reduce exposure. In fact they'd have to use less than half as much of the sensor as I did. I put the raw file back in the camera and re-processed it with the exposure pulled. The JPEG shooter would have to expose and get something like this:





And then of course the real thigh-slapping hilarity of all of this is they're going to have to take that to the computer anyway and try and salvage a usable photo from it -- a task more difficult and time consuming and requiring more skill than just processing the raw file. In fact I imagine I'd process dozens of raw files while a JPEG shooter tried to get anything remotely looking like my first image above from the basket case JPEG they'd bring home.

One it's about exposure: If you shoot JPEG you can't expose and clip the diffuse highlights. That means you're always going to expose less than I do. JPEG shooters typically only use about 1/2 the recording potential in their camera's sensors -- I use it all. The photo presented here is backlit and the lighting contrast is very high. Shooting JPEGs you're forced to walk away with less of the scene's tonal data.

Two it's about processing: The camera JPEG software has limited flexibility and can't do anything local with an image. I dragged a gradient over the sky in processing to allow local control and then I erased the gradient from the boat. When the JPEG software encounters a scene like the one above it doesn't have the ability to accommodate the high lighting contrast (& yes I'm well versed with Active D lighting, Canon HTP,  Fuji DR modes etc. which are good for even more thigh slapping hilarity). As a result the JPEG shooter tries to take a photo like the one above and heads for the computer anyway to try and effect a repair which is more difficult, takes more time and then fails -- thigh slapping LOL.

Of course smart JPEG shooters can just walk away from a scene like the one above and leave it to me.

NOTE: The slide film/negative film comparison: The above scene with the main subject of the photo backlit is a classic case of the transparency film photographer also getting shut down. Try that with any transparency film and if you get a decent exposure for the boat you're going to have clear film base holes in your transparency where the clouds should be. Expose to keep the clouds and you get a basket case exposure of the boat. It's a lose/lose situation. It's always been that way and slide film shooters learned when to walk away. JPEG shooters learn when to walk away too. I take the photo.

Joe


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 23, 2019)

Rinderart said:


> Nice...OK. heres a few straight Jpegs out of camera.



That's not what you posted. The photos that follow this post are certainly not SOOC JPEGs. Most if not all are post processed. They may have originated as camera JPEGs versus output from a computer based raw processor but they've been through the computer and received some heavy software manipulation.



Rinderart said:


> I do this to sell.



Duh... So does McDonalds. They sell more hamburgers than anybody. Guess that means you could never make a hamburger as good as a McDonalds burger.

Joe


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 23, 2019)

Rinderart said:


> Just a reminder. I do levels adjustments, sometimes composites. Dodging and Burning Like we did Long Before digital.



That's obvious, you're heavily post processing camera JPEGs. As you previously note; "you twiddle away your Life processing a Image for Gods sake." So what happened to; "I teach to get it right In Camera like we had to do since Day One.." You don't actually think it takes less work and time to post process a camera JPEG than it does a raw file? LOL

You also noted that you save TIF files as a Master. So your disk storage requirement is much higher than mine saving raw files -- 50% or more higher. That's an advantage too? You're spending more to manage larger files and that's good?



Rinderart said:


> Your preaching to the choir Brother. I'll do whatever it takes. My stuff goes to a gazillion Places my friend. and this is My fun Recreation stuff. my serious stuff is shooting In a clean Room 11 Miles Down Under the Mountains in france and Switzerland shooting The parts for the Hadron Collider with 150 MP cameras....And JPEG BTW....LOL.Talk soon.



So nice photos but pretty heavily cooked with clipped highlights and blown color channels. Is the highlight clipping because you're shooting JPEGs to start with or is that a result of your post processing? If it was me I'd avoid doing that but hey, you do it to sell.

Joe


----------



## The_Traveler (Mar 23, 2019)

Rinderart said:


> Not one leaves here after learning Processing is still shooting Raw.



Do they learn that Processing jpegs is like processing Raw but with much less information?


----------



## JonFZ300 (Mar 23, 2019)

JoeW said:


> My usually workflow is:  shoot in RAW, identify files I want to edit, import them to Affinity Photo, "Develop" the photo (which in AP means take the RAW file and make edits--which almost never involve any serious work on white balance--I try to get that right with the shot rather than post-production).  I'm *always* doing *some sharpening* (b/c it's shot in a RAW format), *some cropping* to alter the composition a bit, *some healing brush* to eliminate a few distractions (damn power line and how the hell did that coke can get in the foreground), *maybe some filter affects* (adding grain or removing haze, etc.), *usually* a little with *shadow or highlights*, *usually* a little around *color*, *occasionally* playing with *DoF settings*, then exporting as a Jpeg.
> 
> But I got to thinking--what editing am I doing that needs to be done in RAW?  If I shot in jpeg I'd lost a lot of more sophisticated editing options and white balance stuff but I'm rarely doing that.  And if I shot in jpeg, it would save the time of "Developing" (ie: reading the RAW file) and also having to sharpen every RAW file.
> 
> Thoughts?  I'd welcome advice.  Because right now if because of my principles (RAW is best for everything I shoot) I'm significantly adding time to my workflow.



If you're going to be doing all the editing steps in *bold* to a jpeg, then you're really only eliminating one step, exporting. You still have to "open" the file and do all these edits. Am I missing something? I would use Raw based on the fact that you do adjustments to shadows and highlights alone. 

Back in the day, the first time I slid the highlights slider down and saw detail appear from what I thought was blown highlights, I decided then and there I would always shoot raw. You simply cannot pull as much detail from shots taken in tricky lighting from a jpeg. Just look at the boat photo above. I've replicated what Ysarex has done more times than I count just to confirm. 

In my opinion, if you're going to edit at all, why not give yourself as much information to work with as possible? If you're not going to edit, it's not hard to batch export to jpeg.

I also agree with Ysarex about some of those that rinderart posted. Some of those composites are just wacky. Mid-day sun screaming over the foreground with a sunset-time sky in the background. Some of them also look like the sky is cropped before being added in. Not to my taste but neither is Britney Spears and she has sold 33 million records. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## Overread (Mar 23, 2019)

I find it confusing that students would learn to process and would all leave shooting JPEG and none leave shooting RAW unless they are a very specific type of student shooting a specific type of scene and setup. Eg I know that many news reporters shoot in JPEG because the editing allowed by most news stations is limited and its more important to have files sent fast to the editor as well. So RAW just holds little benefit (then again a good few shoot both so that the editor has the JPEG and there's a RAW to work from if the photo gets increased demand or goes into private sales etc...). 

Studio shooters who have time and capacity to control the lighting and thus also take a white balance shot and fix it before shooting their main subjects - again I can see them working in JPEG because they've control over the situation.


For me RAW is about potential and its preserving the maximum potential. Sure 90% or more of the time you don't need it; you do minimal editing and you get the shot as clsoe to right in camera  as one can. That said RAW is there for those fewer but more critical situations where you do need it; and for where you might not have a chance to reshoot the shot and enable RAW in the camera after review of the first JPEG shot. 

Furthermore some things in RAW are just easier - highlight and shadow recovery; white balance adjustment. Both are effortless in RAW working, but with a JPEG the data just isn't there for the first two and the latter can be an exercise in frustration trying to tweak the balance of colour in the shot.

@Rinderart I have to say I've never had a problem with high colour glossy/overcooked photos. I've always liked animation so bright and vibrant colours are no issue for me -  a few of the ones you show are REALLY powerful. Even on a calibrated monitor they are going into that "nuclear glow" region which makes me wonder if on an uncalibrated they are even more vibrant. It is indeed what I'd consider "overcooked" to the point it actually detracts rather than attracts the eye. I'm looking in particular at the green tree against an orange background shot. 
That said there's a world of various styles and methods and no one single method is fully correct. 

I think the "issue" some have is the surprise that so many of your students are learning and studying photoshop and moving away from RAW when the experience of most here is the exact opposite. This leads one to think that either the students are learning method that most of us don't know of when it comes to working with the software and editing JPEGs; that they are working in genres where RAW offers no benefit or even that there's a particular style that you present and teach which, again, draws no benefit from RAW.  Ergo without greater context its hard to accept the view that so many have stepped away from RAW at a higher level.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 23, 2019)

Overread said:


> I find it confusing that students would learn to process and would all leave shooting JPEG and none leave shooting RAW unless they are a very specific type of student shooting a specific type of scene and setup. Eg I know that many news reporters shoot in JPEG because the editing allowed by most news stations is limited and its more important to have files sent fast to the editor as well. So RAW just holds little benefit (then again a good few shoot both so that the editor has the JPEG and there's a RAW to work from if the photo gets increased demand or goes into private sales etc...).
> 
> Studio shooters who have time and capacity to control the lighting and thus also take a white balance shot and fix it before shooting their main subjects - again I can see them working in JPEG because they've control over the situation.
> 
> ...



Well-written...


----------



## The_Traveler (Mar 23, 2019)

That would look quite nice on black velvet.


----------



## Rinderart (Mar 23, 2019)

Goodbye everyone. I tried to help. Im not gonna web argue anymore. . Those days are Long gone.Not my cup of tea.Deleting all posts Now. If ya wanna ask a question Rinderart@aol.com


----------



## Overread (Mar 23, 2019)

Rinderart said:


> Goodbye everyone. I tried to help. Im not gonna web argue anymore. . Those days are Long gone.Not my cup of tea.Deleting all posts Now. If ya wanna ask a question Rinderart@aol.com



I didn't see argument so much as a surprising claim being debated - as would be expected in any exchange of ideas and concepts. Myself I even pointed out several specific instances where I can well accept that the workflow doesn't benefit RAW and instead benefits JPEG or where RAW offers little to no gain. Your view was, as presented, quite stronger on the angle that the context didn't matter which is surprising to many of us. I'm saddened that you've decided to leave and not expand upon your point in greater depth so that we could better understand your position and that of your students that you teach.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 23, 2019)

Rinderart said:


> Goodbye everyone. I tried to help. Im not gonna web argue anymore. . Those days are Long gone.Not my cup of tea.Deleting all posts Now. If ya wanna ask a question Rinderart@aol.com



Sorry to see you pulling responses/leaving. I enjoyed your posts/POV/experience/outlook!


----------



## The_Traveler (Mar 23, 2019)

Sometimes I shoot in such adverse conditions that raw is required to get back to something viewable.


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 24, 2019)

Rinderart said:


> Goodbye everyone. I tried to help. Im not gonna web argue anymore. . Those days are Long gone.Not my cup of tea.Deleting all posts Now. If ya wanna ask a question Rinderart@aol.com



Predictable.

Joe


----------



## AlanKlein (Mar 24, 2019)

Ysarex said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > Folks get the whole raw/JPEG difference and rationale confused all the time. There's nothing wrong with JPEGs. JPEG compression is great and my finished photos end up as JPEGs. I print JPEGs all the time and you can't tell the difference. So it's not about JPEG compression -- that's a valuable feature. "Raw processing gives me more flexibility in case I screw up." Don't screw up. I don't shoot raw because I need to cover my butt in case I screw up.
> ...



I took the dark picture and lightened up the shadows in PS ELements.   So there's still plenty of stuff in jpegs even one that was posted on the web.


----------



## AlanKlein (Mar 24, 2019)

There's nothing wrong with RAW to help in tough lighting situations. However,  shooting RAW may fool the photographer into thinking he can get away with sloppy exposure and sloppy composition.  I see that in my photo group.  People saying they'll correct it later in PS rather than taking the time to get in right in the camera.  You can only correct content, perspective and good lighting so much in PS.  A snapshot is a snapshot.


----------



## Overread (Mar 24, 2019)

AlanKlein said:


> There's nothing wrong with RAW to help in tough lighting situations. However,  shooting RAW may fool the photographer into thinking he can get away with sloppy exposure and sloppy composition.  I see that in my photo group.  People saying they'll correct it later in PS rather than taking the time to get in right in the camera.  You can only correct content, perspective and good lighting so much in PS.  A snapshot is a snapshot.



To be fair I think if those people were shooting JPEG they'd still have the same attitude. Sometimes its not the medium or the method or the setup its the attitude of the person and what they want from their hobby. Everyone reaches a point of information and education overload or peaks out at a point where they feel that they know enough and don't dedicate themselves to learning more. More serious people often push further; many don't and will casually enjoy at a level they are at. 
Sometimes its because they lack the drive and determination; sometimes the lack of outside encouragement*; sometimes they lack self learning skills or can't find specific resources or those resources are behind a paywall - so sometimes there are barriers that they cannot overcome on their own. 

*yes yes yes its a hobby and people do it for themselves, but outside influence is also important. A lack of encouragement, from the right source, can result in a person losing enthusiasm.


----------



## AlanKlein (Mar 24, 2019)

Overread said:


> AlanKlein said:
> 
> 
> > There's nothing wrong with RAW to help in tough lighting situations. However,  shooting RAW may fool the photographer into thinking he can get away with sloppy exposure and sloppy composition.  I see that in my photo group.  People saying they'll correct it later in PS rather than taking the time to get in right in the camera.  You can only correct content, perspective and good lighting so much in PS.  A snapshot is a snapshot.
> ...



I agree with many of your points.  However, I think the situation is people learn or think that PS is where all the hard work occurs.  That pictures are "great" because the photographer magically conjured something in editing that made the shot.  They think that technology is going to provide the artistic and important component.  So they ignore the shooting phase as something pedestrian rather than the key requirement.    A snapshot will be a snapshot even if taken in RAW.  And a magical shot will be magical even if only taken in jpeg.  But I do agree, that each person has to decide for themself what is important.


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 24, 2019)

AlanKlein said:


> There's nothing wrong with RAW to help in tough lighting situations.



There's everything right with raw in tough lighting situations to solve the problem and allow for a successful photo that shooting JPEG can't produce at all. Shooting raw doesn't just help; it solves what would be a insurmountable problem if shooting JPEG. It can be a simple case of:

raw = possible
JPEG = impossible



AlanKlein said:


> However,  shooting RAW may fool the photographer into thinking he can get away with sloppy exposure and sloppy composition.  I see that in my photo group.



Why even bring this up? It's the biggest red herring in photo. There is no rule that says because people in your photo club are doing something sloppy that I have to be sloppy too. Can we please assume for the sake of this discussion, without evidence to the contrary that we are not making the mistakes that some other people make. I'm not.



AlanKlein said:


> People saying they'll correct it later in PS rather than taking the time to get in right in the camera.



I was wrong -- THIS is the biggest red herring in photo. The "get it right in camera" myth. The photo I took above of the tow -- there was no "get it right in camera" option to take that photo. The photo I took was not possible if shooting JPEG and certainly not possible as a SOOC JPEG. Again, this is the JPEG my camera created:





It sucks. But in fact I totally nailed the raw exposure in camera. There are no controls in the camera software that will permit that lighting contrast to be handled correctly.

raw = possible
JPEG = impossible

Joe



AlanKlein said:


> You can only correct content, perspective and good lighting so much in PS.  A snapshot is a snapshot.



P.S. It's also worth noting that since in a lighting condition like I dealt with in that tow photo will prohibit a successful SOOC JPEG then it's the JPEG shooter trying nonetheless to take that photo who ends up in PS trying to repair the mess and often just making it worse.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 24, 2019)

Some very IMPORTANT points have been brought to the fore in the last few posts, by all respondents! Overread, Alan K, and Ysarex have each added conditions, points of view,and technical insights that make this question an interesting one...

A similar conunndrum used to exist in the film days,ESPECIALLY WRT color image-making in ambient lighting...
Transparency Films vs. Color Negative Stock was similar,in many respects, to JPEG vs. RAW today...


----------



## Derrel (Mar 24, 2019)

Ysarex said:


> *raw = possible
> JPEG = impossible*


----------



## Rinderart (Mar 24, 2019)

My Version. Just a jpeg.Photography is a art...Not a science. and seriously How did we last for so Long selling Trillions Of Film Images processed at a drug store. I think some go right past everything. Off to France to shoot The collider underground For the smartest folks On the Planet... Im shooting Jpeg. thats is If it's alright? ROFL. 

Bottom Line.
How about if we go back 18 years and agree to do and shoot the way WE as individuals think *works best for us. theres a concept.

Talk later. *Pls analyze the pic to death. And Yes I've shot A LOT of Raw." The Digital Negative" Ya right. Just wasn't for me. Hope thats Alright....? LOL I do OK.


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 24, 2019)

"_Goodbye everyone. I tried to help. Im not gonna web argue anymore. . Those days are Long gone.Not my cup of tea.Deleting all posts Now. If ya wanna ask a question Rinderart@aol.com_"

You're back! Predictable.



Rinderart said:


> My Version. Just a jpeg.Photography is a art...Not a science. and seriously How did we last for so Long selling Trillions Of Film Images processed at a drug store. I think some go right past everything. Off to France to shoot The collider underground For the smartest folks On the Planet... Im shooting Jpeg. thats is If it's alright? ROFL.
> 
> Bottom Line.
> How about if we go back 18 years and agree to do and shoot the way WE as individuals think *works best for us. theres a concept.*



"_I shoot Jpeg.... You wanna twiddle your Profit away. go for it. *I teach to get it right In Camera* like we had to do since Day One.. seems Like a no Brainer to me. and this is not 2001 and we really don't need to argue about it. *See it and shoot it right.Period. Learn that.*
Look at My Site www.Rinderart.com
And learn to see before all the Nonsense. And you twiddle away your Life processing a Image for Gods sake...."_

And then you post about 1/2 dozen (we must assume originally camera JPEGs) heavily processed and heavily cooked that no possible way were SOOC.

*


Rinderart said:



			Talk later.
		
Click to expand...

*


Rinderart said:


> Pls analyze the pic to death. And Yes I've shot A LOT of Raw." The Digital Negative" Ya right. Just wasn't for me. Hope thats Alright....?



You started with this; "_Im not here to argue about this because Im sick of doing it and that was years ago_." Followed by this: "_Im not gonna web argue anymore. . Those days are Long gone.Not my cup of tea."_ Some people make valid observations like you're using up more than 50% disk storage space doing what you're doing. That your claim; "_I teach to get it right in Camera_" is pretty suspect since all the photos you show us are heavily manipulated in post process but you posted them saying; "_heres a few straight Jpegs out of camera._" You storm out in a huff like a spoiled child and delete the photos you posted. And now you're back and you're the one who's arguing. Seriously?

Joe


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 24, 2019)

Rinderart said:


> My Version.



And mine.

Joe


----------



## Rinderart (Mar 25, 2019)

Your right. Goodbye joe. your a real winner man. sorry guys.Wrong forum.Closing account.I make photographs. I don't Just Take Pictures. Listen to Joe. Want Help ?    Write me...Rinderart@aol.com


----------



## Overread (Mar 25, 2019)

As we appear to be going in a few circles and moving somewhat away from the OP's original tangent on the thread I think its time to close this one. Any who do wish to take this subject of discussion further are free to start their own thread on the topic.


----------

