# how did i let you guys talk me into pulling the raws



## bribrius (Dec 26, 2014)

unless you have to do serious editing I just don't see the point. And now after the last raw vs. jpeg debate I pulled mostly all raw figuring i will give it a shot. . in return for that, I have like 700 images to edit in which 670 or so would have been fine straight jpeg. Some probably better straight jpeg because since i don't really want to edit them all im not exactly doing a stellar job at it.  plus I have to convert all the them, plus my back up just sucked up all these raw files wasting space. so i have to delete the raws from the backup and replace them with smaller jpegs.  Tempted to do a batch edit and just toss out about half that don't make it.

damn it, i knew i shouldn't have listened wth was i thinking. Talk about a waste of time and energy...

i got to stop listening to people. i just got to.. this is just a waste of time and a total mess and more hours. And since i am converting them all to jpeg anyway just totally retarded and redundant. And the one photo i thought i would get the benefit from, a bw. Probably would have came out better straight highcontrast jpeg with no editing.
total, total, waste , of....... my............................................................time......................................


----------



## robbins.photo (Dec 26, 2014)

bribrius said:


> i got to stop listening to people. i just got to.. .



I'm sorry, did you say something?


----------



## qleak (Dec 27, 2014)

Raw files are not for everyone. 

They do however offer a very good value for the space being stored.  On a d7100  a raw is somewhere around 33MB. If you interpolate this to a full RGB 16 bit png is around 100MB. This is mainly due to the nature of a Bayer array. A full resolution jpeg is over 20 MB. i don't recall the exact figure i just know I've had to compress a bit to do Internet ordered prints from my local shops cause 20 MB is the upper limit. 

It sounds like you have work flow issues if covering 670 files is a problem. What program are you using?


----------



## qleak (Dec 27, 2014)

You don't necessarily have to take less pictures as some people suggest.  But you may need to adjust based on your habits and come to terms with dying before you even see many of your pictures processed.

Garry Winogrand was known to walk down the street and go through a whole roll of 36 frames.  Someone once asked him if he regretted missing pictures when he changed the film.  He responded: "there are no pictures when i change the film".

Check out this article about how much work they found when he died:

Camera Works: Photo Essay (washingtonpost.com)

If i recall correctly,  which i don't always do,  garry was very very efficient at discarding work he didn't feel was up to snuff. This included accepting or rejecting the frame as a whole without cropping. I get the impression he probably would have shot jpeg also


----------



## bribrius (Dec 27, 2014)

qleak said:


> Raw files are not for everyone.
> 
> They do however offer a very good value for the space being stored.  On a d7100  a raw is somewhere around 33MB. If you interpolate this to a full RGB 16 bit png is around 100MB. This is mainly due to the nature of a Bayer array. A full resolution jpeg is over 20 MB. i don't recall the exact figure i just know I've had to compress a bit to do Internet ordered prints from my local shops cause 20 MB is the upper limit.
> 
> It sounds like you have work flow issues if covering 670 files is a problem. What program are you using?


it is a problem because i am sick of doing it and staring at a computer screen. view nx and capture. 99 percent nx.... i have some raws running 50mb and ful res jpegs running under 20 i was just flipping through 17, 18,19, there could be some 20's though.. lower jpegs 10mb and less.

mostly it is just unnecessary time. i was shooting primarily jpeg, or if i questioned the need for editing jpeg + raw. Then i could just pull the raw after if i needed it on something but primarily just pull all the jpegs. Also adjust the jpeg in camera i don't need a high res quality for jpeg for every shot. shooting straight raw, for me at least, is just causing more work and really a total waste of time and redundant.  And a waste of space. Raws are useless anyway, so i have to go back and convert them. totally pointless. this laptop has i think 8 megabytes of ram. Just waiting for the computer to edit and convert one photo in capture i can sit here for a minute. that is a lot of minutes. Never mind my actual edit minutes and delete and get rid of raw file minutes.

total waste of time......raw only for the ones that need it for now on. From a work flow standpoint doing it this way don't even make sense.


----------



## qleak (Dec 27, 2014)

bribrius said:


> qleak said:
> 
> 
> > Raw files are not for everyone.
> ...



So you are using photoshop? Lightroom? 

I use Linux only so i use gimp / darktable. I do an quick rating and rejection process each import and batch delete the rejects every week or so.  

I try to keep the edits to things that can be changed quickly like curves, exposure and white balance.  Typically get all are about the same for a given session then batch apply. 

Are you batching your process? You can highly automate this process. I believe Lightroom is good for this. 

Again I'm not saying you should shoot raw,  jpeg is usually better for high volume shooters. 

I agree raw+jpeg can be a big hassle if you have your program set up to recognize both.


----------



## bribrius (Dec 27, 2014)

qleak said:


> You don't necessarily have to take less pictures as some people suggest.  But you may need to adjust based on your habits and come to terms with dying before you even see many of your pictures processed.
> 
> Garry Winogrand was known to walk down the street and go through a whole roll of 36 frames.  Someone once asked him if he regretted missing pictures when he changed the film.  He responded: "there are no pictures when i change the film".
> 
> ...


i don't really take that many photos i took about 15k this year. Probably 8k last year. Maybe 4-5k the year before. this year is my first year i have been over 10k. Out of my 15k this year i have about 8000 after culling right now, so far. it will go smaller. Interesting read.


----------



## Nettles (Dec 27, 2014)

There has always been a kind of RAW elitism out there that puts things out of balance. I prefer JPEG in many situations and setting my camera to shoot both at the same time is the  ideal solution. 

There are some contexts where the extra durability of RAW is crucial because I know that the JPEG would get damaged by the processing I need to do. But for me this is the exception to the rule. I can usually edit JPEGs (sometimes saved as TIFFs) without being destructive because the editing is subtle and suits the tones in the image.


----------



## bribrius (Dec 27, 2014)

qleak said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > qleak said:
> ...


i don't  use lightroom or photoshop. just nx and capture. i had gimp in my other laptop that died, but didn't use it. i am going to batch process i wont be able to do that with most of them though. Mostly always shot straight jpeg only. If i shoot raw + jpeg i shoot raw in slot 1 and jpeg in slot 2 and i only pull the card from slot 1 if i really have to. so basically the difference is lately i have been shooting raw AND pulling the card.   i dunno. No more raw though unless there is a actual NEED for it..


----------



## bribrius (Dec 27, 2014)

Nettles said:


> There has always been a kind of RAW elitism out there that puts things out of balance. I prefer JPEG in many situations and setting my camera to shoot both at the same time is the  ideal solution.
> 
> There are some contexts where the extra durability of RAW is crucial because I know that the JPEG would get damaged by the processing I need to do. But for me this is the exception to the rule. I can usually edit JPEGs (sometimes saved as TIFFs) without being destructive because the editing is subtle and suits the tones in the image.


EXACTLY. In 90 percent of my shots i just flat out don't need a RAW file.  In a good portion of them i don't even need a high res jpeg a normal or low quality one would do.


----------



## Light Guru (Dec 27, 2014)

bribrius said:


> i don't  use lightroom or photoshop. just nx and capture.



That's probably a big part of your frustration with not liking raw.  Use Lightroom and ether find or make a preset that gives you the pre educated JPEG look that your camera gives you. You can then have that preset automatically applied to any image you import into lightroom.  

Your camera applies the exact same processing to every JPEG it makes so you applying the exact same preset to every image you import into lightroom is no different, except that you have the raw image and can make better adjustments to individual images as desired.  

It also sounds like the number of images you shoot is doubling each year.  4k, then 8k and now 15k at this rate next year you will easily be 25-30k in images shot that year. Lightroom will definitely be helpful in organizing all your images. 

As for your comments about raw files are "wasting space" hard drives are cheep these days.


----------



## gsgary (Dec 27, 2014)

This is why digital is so boring


----------



## Overread (Dec 27, 2014)

If RAW is slowing you down and you're not benefiting from it then don't use it. Or use RAW+FPEG so that you can get the best of both worlds. 

Note that every RAW had a JPEG embedded into it - I seem to recall there is software out there which can pull the JPEG out of the RAW for you (why this isn't a default feature of things like photoshop I'm unsure). 

Also you can set up something like lightroom or photoshop with default actions/settings so that you can just open up the RAWs and batch process them very quickly. Giving you speed of JPEG with the bonus of RAW on shots if you need it



gsgary said:


> This is why digital is so boring



I'mma get the techs to build some kind of cage around you film nuts


----------



## gsgary (Dec 27, 2014)

Only time i shots jpeg only was when i was shooting sports events and printing on site but exposures had to be spot on anyone helping me that didn't was down the road


----------



## Overread (Dec 27, 2014)

gsgary said:


> Only time i shots jpeg only was when i was shooting sports events and printing on site but exposures had to be spot on anyone helping me that didn't was down the road



Aye that and journalists/sports shooters shooting for print are often done on JPEG because there isn't the time to fuss with sorting things out plus smaller file sizes make transfers quicker and easier. 

Certainly RAW can  be done fast, but it can slow things up - if you're shooting a bunch of shots - handing the card over and then going out to shoot more chances are the person you hand them over to has a tiny window of time to make a product from them. Better to have a "click print" jpeg than fiddle with the RAW.


----------



## Rick58 (Dec 27, 2014)

Geez...and Chernobyl thought they had a melt down. I'd try decafe tomorrow morning.


----------



## Didereaux (Dec 27, 2014)

...just remember that EVERY time you do anything to a jpeg it degrades.  That means resizing etc  ANYTHING!


----------



## KenC (Dec 27, 2014)

Aside from automated conversion, which is the first thing I thought about when I read your post, the other issue is whether you have that many shots that really are worth working on.  Not criticizing your work, I just don't think anyone does.  Whether darkroom or digital, no one spends time on most of the images they shoot.  Some of the best photographers I've known spent time on only a few percent of what they shot.  The one exception is something like a wedding, but for that you really would need LR.


----------



## Nettles (Dec 27, 2014)

Didereaux said:


> ...just remember that EVERY time you do anything to a jpeg it degrades.  That means resizing etc  ANYTHING!



That's misleading. Look here:

JPEG File Format Myths and Facts


----------



## Didereaux (Dec 27, 2014)

Nettles said:


> Didereaux said:
> 
> 
> > ...just remember that EVERY time you do anything to a jpeg it degrades.  That means resizing etc  ANYTHING!
> ...



I was apparently unclear in not explicitly excluding opening and closing, to me those are not 'operations' if an edit is involved then the problem comes in re; my listing resizing etc. 
 To use your own source:
*JPEGs lose quality every time they are opened, edited and saved.*
True. If a JPEG image is opened, edited, and saved again it results in additional image degradation. It is very important to minimize the number of editing sessions between the initial and final version of a JPEG image. If you must perform editing functions in several sessions or in several different programs, you should use an image format that is not lossy (TIFF, BMP, PNG) for the intermediate editing sessions before saving the final version. Repeated saving _within the same editing session_ won't introduce additional damage. It is only when the image is closed, re-opened, edited and saved again."


----------



## paigew (Dec 27, 2014)

I don't get it. Processing raw files takes no more time that processing jpegs for me. Are you using LR? I shoot RAW only and have ~15k  images from 2014 and almost all are processed


----------



## Ysarex (Dec 27, 2014)

Instant JPEG from Raw

Two mouse clicks.

Joe

edit: That's two most clicks to do all of them at once.


----------



## photoguy99 (Dec 27, 2014)

Keep in mind that most people you find talking about photography on the internet are fond of cameras, gear, processes, software, and all the associated gadgetry. The pictures are secondary.

This is normal and natural and i have no problem with it.

But it does color the discussion.


----------



## weepete (Dec 27, 2014)

Its simple, if you want to edit, shoot raw. If you don't want to edit shoot jpeg.


----------



## Nevermore1 (Dec 27, 2014)

bribrius you sound just like my Dad did the other day when he asked me to take some photos of a sword for him.  He complained for about 45 minutes about why anyone would do something so stupid as to take pictures in a RAW format when the computer can't read them without special SW then you have edit them to actually be able to use them, blah, blah, blah.

I think it's all a matter of preference.   If you prefer to have a "usable" file SOOC then use JPEG,  if you like to spend time editing then use RAW.  Use what works for you, not what works for someone else.  As for me, I'll be sure to remember to change my camera settings to JPEG next time I help my Dad so I don't have ro listen to him again.


----------



## Gary A. (Dec 27, 2014)

My keeper rate when I was shooting film was about 1:36. Shooting digital it is 1:50.


----------



## Gary A. (Dec 27, 2014)

RAW is merely another tool to squeeze out the last bit of goodness ... usually from a less-than-perfectly exposed image. (especially wb)

I shoot RAW because I also shoot manual with spot metering and sometimes/often I misjudge my eye/meter. RAW helps me recover those misjudgements. If there is no difference between your JPEG keeper rate and your RAW keeper rate ... then there probably isn't much reason to shoot RAW. 

I preview/rate everything in Aperture and then pull out the better from the garbage. Next I individually perform global manipulations on each image and further discard more crap from the better. Then, in Aperture, I batch convert my keepers from RAW to JPEG. Next I polish the images in PhotoShop performing area specific manipulations (dodging and burn), B&W conversions and cropping. Fini.


----------



## Trever1t (Dec 27, 2014)

WHAT image is so important to have and not important enough to edit properly? 

Seriously, why are you having to edit hundreds of frames? Wedding?

In a portrait session I will shoot 200-600 frames...I only edit 3-10 of them. 
On a vacation I'll shoot the same, edit a few more perhaps. 

Who wants to look at 600 frames of the same things?

Honest, I won't shoot jpg. What reason is there to pick up my camera if I don't give it my 100%.....that's what my cell phone is for!


----------



## paigew (Dec 27, 2014)

Agree! If I shoot jpeg its with my iphone


----------



## Ysarex (Dec 27, 2014)

Trever1t said:


> WHAT image is so important to have and not important enough to edit properly?





Joe


----------



## photoguy99 (Dec 27, 2014)

Online forums tend to fetishize image quality over content. Which makes them wonderful resources for you when you're seeing to improve that angle.

The raw vs. jpeg debate is just one piece of that. See also FF vs. crop; cell phones vs. DSLRs; endless discussions of how to get sharper photos; and on and on.

A SOOC jpeg of something good is worth an infinity of RAW files of nothing


----------



## Overread (Dec 27, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> Online forums tend to fetishize image quality over content.



Which is why the "brick wall" gallery is our most popular gallery! Show casing the best in RAW and optical performance! With the straightest lines - sharpest details - deepest depth - richest colour corrected colour! Indeed its a fantastic showcase of technical perfection. 

So good in fact that we keep it hidden from normal members; anyone who wants in though just has to report to Mish for a permit (also she requires those turning up to bring their own handcuffs these days).


----------



## photoguy99 (Dec 27, 2014)

I used the word FETISH on purpose!


----------



## Ysarex (Dec 27, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> A SOOC jpeg of something good is worth an infinity of RAW files of nothing



And that same photograph of something good get's even better if the IQ is better.

There's no law that says we have to sacrifice one for the other or that an engaging image isn't improved if it's also technically well done.

I'm listening to Beethoven's violin concerto right now. I'm glad that the violinist is I. Perlman. You wouldn't prefer to listen to it performed by someone who plays poorly, right?

Joe


----------



## pgriz (Dec 27, 2014)

Back to Brian's beef.  I shoot RAW+JPG all the time.  When downloading from the camera to the computer, there's a few commands that get applied automatically.  Then there's a quick pass through to eliminate the obvious clunkers, and tag the images that will be copied to working storage (usually only about a tenth of what I shot).  Then the downloads are backed up, and my attention is now on the much smaller number of images where I go to the RAWs for tweaks, etc.  If it's a family get-together, the JPG's get copied and handed out.  I shudder at the thought of processing 600+ RAWs.


----------



## photoguy99 (Dec 27, 2014)

There's no law, it appears to be habit and inattention. But that's just a theory.


----------



## bribrius (Dec 27, 2014)

Gary A. said:


> My keeper rate when I was shooting film was about 1:36. Shooting digital it is 1:50.


my keepers aren't even just based on the quality of the photo. ones I really like I of course keep. A low quality one that didn't come out I may keep for future reference for a reshoot, to remember my mistakes, if it made a certain effect I could use later, or just to track my progress. Then I could have a better shot I have no need for and will just delete it. stuff I am more apt to delete. abstracts, landscapes nature (have to be a damn good flower shot for me to keep it at this point). stuff I am less apt to delete, record type shots, photos of my kids, street photography. stuff more likely to go to raw, night long exposure and questionable lighting shots, artistic purpose shots like if purposely intend to drive down the exposure for a effect, wedding type shots (but since I have only done one that is really a nonexistent issue).  Most all daytime, majority of my kids photos, street, holidays and family, the majority of everything is fine in jpeg and often low quality jpeg.   There is something to be said for time too. In the time it takes to fix a shot I could just take another one and use the mistakes on the first to learn from and not make them again. In fact I might be better off just getting off my azz and redoing the shot if it is really that important or just deleting it if it isn't.  I was keeping shutter speed photos for a while even if they sucked just to get a better grasp  on shutter speed. I kept water drop photos for a while that sucked just playing with water drops (mostly deleted now waste of space). But then I could come out with a half way decent abstract and just not need it or want it, delete delete. lot of stuff I know I will delete before I hit shutter even "lets go practice and frig off for a hour" and really don't raws for that.. i will flip through them and mostly delete delete delete.


----------



## bribrius (Dec 27, 2014)

Trever1t said:


> WHAT image is so important to have and not important enough to edit properly?
> 
> Seriously, why are you having to edit hundreds of frames? Wedding?
> 
> ...


The vast majority of what I shoot, will never see print. I think I have printed a total of maybe 500 photos this year. To me shooting raw and editing is bringing it to a level of thinking everything needs to be shot in medium and large format. which is ridiculous in my opinion. If I need to shoot raw I need to. If I plan on something going to large print then yeah, shoot raw. Most of this stuff wont even see print at all just sit on a drive...


----------



## bribrius (Dec 27, 2014)

Ysarex said:


> photoguy99 said:
> 
> 
> > A SOOC jpeg of something good is worth an infinity of RAW files of nothing
> ...


then you should throw away your dslr and shoot everything large format you are wasting your time too.


----------



## photoguy99 (Dec 27, 2014)

I find it very interesting to look at various and sundry 'great photos' from the past. You know the ones, whichever ones you like.

They're often surprisingly bad by modern standards. Blown highlights. Blocked up blacks. Sketchy focus. Weird tonal placement due to botched exposure. Why are they good? Is it because they were shoot raw and edited to within an inch of their life?

Nope. Someone did on the right place and squashed a button at the right moment.

That's what matters. That's virtually the only thing that matters.


----------



## beachrat (Dec 27, 2014)

If *I* were *you*,I'd shoot jpeg.
Seems like a very simple solution to me.
Plus,you wouldn't be wasting even more of your time tending to a thread about it.


----------



## Trever1t (Dec 27, 2014)

I don't print very much, what's raw have to do with printing?


----------



## Overread (Dec 27, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> Nope. Someone did on the right place and squashed a button at the right moment.
> 
> That's what matters. That's virtually the only thing that matters.



Photos are a composite of several different elements. Trying to prioritize them into some kind of order of importance nearly always fails. Because there are examples on all sides to support that side. 

As a result the best thing one can do is to aim to learn as much as they can about each area. Then armed with the knowledge they can make informed choices when they shoot.

It sounds like you've already made that choice yourself; but it does a great disservice to others learning their way up the scale to tell them to out-right discount a whole avenue of learning because you've made a choice on what is critically important to yourself. Especially so because chances are there ARE situations where you expect technical excellence to be a core part of the shot. 

You seem very earnest upon ensuring that newbies don't get hung up on the technicalities; but you're doing so by trying to dismiss them. To discount them as being totally unimportant. That is a great disservice to those willing and eager to learn and crippling to those who might avoid learning it as a result. 


By all means make your choices, but don't try to discourage others from learning and going down the same path (and maybe choosing a different ending point).


----------



## bribrius (Dec 27, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> I find it very interesting to look at various and sundry 'great photos' from the past. You know the ones, whichever ones you like.
> 
> They're often surprisingly bad by modern standards. Blown highlights. Blocked up blacks. Sketchy focus. Weird tonal placement due to botched exposure. Why are they good? Is it because they were shoot raw and edited to within an inch of their life?
> 
> ...


Pretty much anyone who is anyone in photography around here give credence to Fred Philpot. And at one point I was collecting his photos and cards, following along shooting similar scenes. Maine Memory Network | Fred Philpot Store, Springvale, ca. 1890  He has had books written about him (wife knows one of the authors that wrote one).  The reason he is so appreciated is the vast majority of images we have in the southern part of the state and some in newhampshire  and elsewhere all came from him. It isn't so much the quality as many aren't even level, but the times and record. Without him much of that time and happenings would have gone uncaptured. He was obsessed with photography and wanted everything in a photo. And for those looking back he is basically THE one they attribute everything from the entire area from that time period too. I don't live far from either of where his shop or studios were and often walk along the same streets over this hundred years later. It is a odd thing a single man could leave so much. He went rather unnoticed at the time, didn't gain recognition until years later.


----------



## bribrius (Dec 27, 2014)

Trever1t said:


> I don't print very much, what's raw have to do with printing?


well for me at least, if something is going to print I am a little more inclined about it being "just right" or at least higher quality. so would be more apt to want that precautionary chance to edit it if need be at some point with more lattitude. Especially certain photos that need it. .  If it isn't going to print and will most likely sit on the hard drive why worry about it? I mean it is nice to flip through your photos on the screen I suppose but for quality purposes if isn't going to print does it really matter? Lets say I do screw up that jpeg editing too much. well if it isn't ever going to be printed, who really cares. You can still flip through your photos on the screen and look at it. And if it is lower quality, well you are staring at it on a screen. so what. usually you would be hard pressed to know the difference. Now if I treasure a image for some reason, wanted a higher quality level that could only be done through raw, and planned on it going to print well that is something else.

A lot of stuff wont ever see print though. Lets say I spend a couple hours editing a photo to post on here or somewhere (even 500px or something) . Odds are it will never see print. I may get some likes on it, but so what? it isn't going to print.  Or at least the odds of it going to print and someone actually buying one are so unlikely it really wouldn't be worth worrying about it. so why care? And even if it is going to print, does the photo require a raw file edit anyway? usually not for what I shoot only certain things.


----------



## bribrius (Dec 27, 2014)

beachrat said:


> If *I* were *you*,I'd shoot jpeg.
> Seems like a very simple solution to me.
> Plus,you wouldn't be wasting even more of your time tending to a thread about it.


no chit. kinda wishing I didn't start this thread now..


----------



## The_Traveler (Dec 27, 2014)

This shooting raw stuff is just a continuation of your method of learning by trying something without knowing why and then you come a ceopper and decide it's someone else's fault because it isn't working.

You aren't trying to learn in any organized way so you're wasting time and energy re-inventing the wheel all the time.
This was possible when you bought film and sent it off to be processed because most of the important decisions are already made outside of your hands.

You are treating digital as if it was the same and you are just plain wrong.


----------



## Ysarex (Dec 27, 2014)

bribrius said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > photoguy99 said:
> ...



Have you ever taken a photo with a sheet film camera?

I listened to Beethoven's violin concerto earlier from a CD recording -- through pretty cheap speakers played on my computer. It would sound better if I were at the concert Hall listening to it live. Therefore I should never listen to another recording again. I assume you likewise never listen to recordings for the same reason. You only wear hand-tailored clothing and if you can't get where you're going in your Audi you just don't go. If you can't have your usual gourmet prepared filet mignon you just don't eat.

The world's not so black and white and I don't have a DSLR.

-------------------------------------

So if it's possible to do a better job at anything, you really shouldn't because_____________ And I'd love to know why.

Joe


----------



## Ysarex (Dec 27, 2014)

bribrius said:


> Lets say I spend a couple hours editing a photo to post on here or somewhere (even 500px or something) .



*A couple of hours!!! A photo!!!!!*

You didn't mean a couple of minutes and you're not exaggerating? Problem diagnosed.

Joe


----------



## photoguy99 (Dec 27, 2014)

It's absolutely true that I am actively campaigning against technique as the main thing.

While Joe is technically correct that there's no reason we cannot get technique, image quality, and so on, as perfect as possible while simultaneously making interesting worthwhile photos, this assumes that we have infinite resources to apply. The average amateur has pretty limited time to spend at this.

If solving technical puzzles is what excites you, pleases you, then by all means go forth and do all that stuff. I have found that I like drafting and drafting tools rather more than I like designing boats, and that doesn't make me a bad person. It does make me Not A Naval Architect, though.

The vast majority of online resources, including this forum, tend strongly toward treating photography as a series of technical problems to be solved. The vast majority of images shared by people who style themselves Photographers online are not photographs at all, they are technical exercises. Exercises in form, color, lighting, whatever. It's not a portrait at all, it's an exercise in portrait lighting. It's not a landscape, although it has land in it, it's an exercise in..  a host of things: hyperfocal distance, tripod usage, color management, editing, etc etc.

What has this to do with the OP? RAW is a technical solution to a set of technical problems. It cannot add "salt" (to use, I think, the OP's word from another thread). "Salt", or "heart" or whatever you want to call it is put in by standing in the right place, pointing the camera properly, and pressing the button at the right moment. Whether you shoot SOOC JPEG with a p&s, or use a gigantic 50mp medium format engine of destruction hardly matters, you'll have the heart.

So, if heart, salt, or whatever you want to call it, is what matters to you -- and it need not -- then husband your resources. Spend as much time on technical details as is appropriate to leave you the time and energy necessary to make the photos you want to make. Where that line lies will vary from one person to another. I cannot tell you were your line is.

But I think it's worth spending a moment to think about it. Not everyone who is sucked into the rabbit hole of IQ etc is happy to be endlessly falling down it, the OP included. It's worth more than a huffy "well, I guess YOU should shoot JPEG, then!"


----------



## Ysarex (Dec 27, 2014)

All art and expression is two-sided: content and craft. Without the content nothing of value remains. But if the craft is weak the content/expression is delivered with less effect.

I read T.S. Eliot because of what he has to say. And I celebrate his craft -- that he could say it so well.

The artist who respects him/herself and his/her work does not shrug off the task of mastering the craft as unessential.

These two aspects of art are not in conflict. You don't give up one to have the other. They work together to enhance each other.

Joe

edit: I missed the previous post as I wrote this. Balance and moderation in all we do with our focus fixed on purpose is how we stay sane and healthy.


----------



## sleist (Dec 27, 2014)

Interesting thread ...

JPEG or RAW matters not.  So long as you are able to produce the image you saw in your mind's eye.
This image may be total crap, but that has little to do with the format of the file.

There is nothing preventing someone from configuring the camera to produce a JPEG exactly how they want the shot to look.
I think it highly suspect that a newb could perform such a feat, which means they are using the camera JPEG defaults.
Nothing wrong with defaults, but how much creative thought is going into using the manufacturers idea of what an image should look like?
I think one needs to shoot RAW before they can know how to shoot JPEG.

We do not see with our eyes.  We see with our mind.
The camera mimics our eyes.  Our processing reintroduces our mind's eye to the image.

Photography is about showing how _*you*_ see the world.  Not how your camera sees it.


----------



## photoguy99 (Dec 27, 2014)

Joe and I agree on a lot more than meets the eye.


----------



## Ysarex (Dec 27, 2014)

sleist said:


> Interesting thread ...
> 
> JPEG or RAW matters not.  So long as you are able to produce the image you saw in your mind's eye.
> This image may be total crap, but that has little to do with the format of the file.
> ...



Yes, there is. The limited capability of the camera's JPEG processing software regularly prevents me from getting the shot exactly as I want it to look. I'd use it if it could.

Joe



sleist said:


> I think it highly suspect that a newb could perform such a feat, which means they are using the camera JPEG defaults.
> Nothing wrong with defaults, but how much creative thought is going into using the manufacturers idea of what an image should look like?
> I think one needs to shoot RAW before they can know how to shoot JPEG.
> 
> ...


----------



## pixmedic (Dec 27, 2014)

Ysarex said:


> All art and expression is two-sided: content and craft. Without the content nothing of value remains. But if the craft is weak the content/expression is delivered with less effect.
> 
> I read T.S. Eliot because of what he has to say. And I celebrate his craft -- that he could say it so well.
> 
> ...



that is beautiful man...it should be made a sticky somewhere.


----------



## bribrius (Dec 27, 2014)

pixmedic said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > All art and expression is two-sided: content and craft. Without the content nothing of value remains. But if the craft is weak the content/expression is delivered with less effect.
> ...


I was just thinking t.s. eliot probably wouldn't want to process raws either. If we are going to bring up art into it I think it important we come to terms with what we are comparing. I may have to listen to this on a synthesized programmable keyboard with sound effects but I wouldn't exactly jump for joy at the prospect of it nor jump for joy at the aspect of coming up with my own programmable "interpretation" of it. . Far as huggable items in music the keyboard I wouldn't find very akin to wanting to hug it.


----------



## Ysarex (Dec 27, 2014)

bribrius said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > Ysarex said:
> ...



Why not?



bribrius said:


> If we are going to bring up art into it I think it important we come to terms with what we are comparing. I may have to listen to this on a synthesized programmable keyboard with sound effects but I wouldn't exactly jump for joy at the prospect of it nor jump for joy at the aspect of coming up with my own programmable "interpretation" of it. . Far as huggable items in music the keyboard I wouldn't find very akin to wanting to hug it.



I get no point from this at all, and I've actually played an organ with a tracker keyboard.

Joe


----------



## bribrius (Dec 27, 2014)

Ysarex said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > pixmedic said:
> ...


well geesh joe, we already sold out like whores going digital much like the churches dumped most of the grand pipe organs to save a buck and got plastic synthesized keyboards. I get we should know how to use the keyboard to a extent but do we really need to pretend it is art like this and the same as the grand pipe organ? Most of us shoot digital purely to save a buck. it isn't a artistic choice. whoring with it is one thing, do we really need to jump in bed with it and stay the night? Cant we just play our song and put it back in the case and forget about it without spending all the hours learning to program the stupid thing? I don't mind taking her for a test drive or a romp with the lights out but if I study her that close in good light I may feel the need to wash my hands. I get the need for some raw files and post process and do if I totally have to. But my mother raised me better than to hang out in the red light district and I went to a church with a pipe organ and no plastic keyboards.


----------



## pixmedic (Dec 27, 2014)

you guys arent going to make me break out the banninator-9000 and start banninating are you?


----------



## Rick58 (Dec 27, 2014)

Hold on...I got it here somewhere. Oh, there it is.......


----------



## pixmedic (Dec 27, 2014)

Rick58 said:


> Hold on...I got it here somewhere. Oh, there it is.......



we get too many complaints when we lock or delete threads. 
its better just to drop some temp bans and let the thread continue with more civilized persons.


----------



## beachrat (Dec 27, 2014)

bribrius said:


> beachrat said:
> 
> 
> > If *I* were *you*,I'd shoot jpeg.
> ...


Well,you really answered your own question in your original post
If you really didn't want to waste time,this would have never happened.
Maybe dig a little deeper and find some real answers because you aren't making a ton of sense.
I've been there.


----------



## Ysarex (Dec 27, 2014)

bribrius said:


> well geesh joe, we already sold out like whores going digital much like the churches dumped most of the grand pipe organs to save a buck and got plastic synthesized keyboards. I get we should know how to use the keyboard to a extent but do we really need to pretend it is art like this and the same as the grand pipe organ?



Here in the midwest we still have real pipe organs in lots of the churches. Brabara Harbach plays the Aeolian-Skinner organ here at Christ Church and it has real pipes. The air is supplied by an electric motor however and the keyboard action is electronic. Those are both technological advantages. Bach would have peed his pants in delight to see a pipe organ that made a sound when you pressed the key and not a half second later.

Small churches that can't afford a pipe organ can however afford other instruments. It is beneficial for them that they have those rather than not.

Just as it was beneficial when my son was in high school and wanted to study keyboard that I was able to buy him a full 88 key electronic keyboard. I could not have bought him a piano. I did manage to scrape enough together and pop for a keyboard with a real piano action as it was important to help him develop appropriate technique. He is overall much better off for the experience of having that keyboard than not. If not for advances in tecnology he wouldn't have had it.



bribrius said:


> Most of us shoot digital purely to save a buck.



Speak for yourself -- I don't.



bribrius said:


> it isn't a artistic choice.



Again speak for yourself. If you're not happy then change. Why whine about something you have the choice to change. What's your problem? Go put some film in a camera and get out of here. Or actually learn to use a digital camera.

*NOTE: I switched from film to digital when it was obvious to me that I could get better photographs using digital cameras and digital processing.* I didn't do it because it was cheaper. I didn't do it because it was easier. I did it because I could improve my work and get the results I wanted. *The advances in technology permit me to do better work -- good reason to adopt those advances. *You can't get good results from a digital camera -- your problem. *I get excellent results from a digital camera; better than was possible using film.* You don't want to learn -- again your problem.



bribrius said:


> whoring with it is one thing, do we really need to jump in bed with it and stay the night? Cant we just play our song and put it back in the case and forget about it without spending all the hours learning to program the stupid thing? I don't mind taking her for a test drive or a romp with the lights out but if I study her that close in good light I may feel the need to wash my hands. I get the need for some raw files and post process and do if I totally have to. But my mother raised me better than to hang out in the red light district and I went to a church with a pipe organ and no plastic keyboards.



You're talking about what I do for a living. That could sound pretty offense if I didn't already know you were confused. Maybe you could move to someplace like southern Uzbekistan where life is still kinda like the late Middle Ages -- live in a tent -- burn camel dung.

Joe


----------



## bribrius (Dec 27, 2014)

Ysarex said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > well geesh joe, we already sold out like whores going digital much like the churches dumped most of the grand pipe organs to save a buck and got plastic synthesized keyboards. I get we should know how to use the keyboard to a extent but do we really need to pretend it is art like this and the same as the grand pipe organ?
> ...


Looking back I did phrase that fairly untactful. I Apologize. it wasn't meant to be personal.  Not confused. I know what I am doing. I am weeding things out and deciding what I don't want my photography to be.


----------



## photoguy99 (Dec 27, 2014)

bribrius, I think you're blaming digital technology for something it is not guilty of.

Digital has attracted and enabled a lot of people to start doing photography. It's also encouraged the attitude that photography is a set of technical problems to be solved. This had always been with us, but digital has opened this world up to a whole lot more people.

If you think of photography as primarily the pursuit of technical excellence, you're going to make a certain kind of image. The kind you and I hate.

These people have always been with us, digital seems to have made them the overwhelming majority. Especially online, where everything is already digital.

And more power to them, to be fair. They're having a great time.


----------



## robbins.photo (Dec 27, 2014)

Ysarex said:


> Bach would have peed his pants in delight to see a pipe organ that made a sound when you pressed the key and not a half second later.



Lol.. now there's a mental image I'll be carrying with me for a while.

*



			NOTE: I switched from film to digital when it was obvious to me that I could get better photographs using digital cameras and digital processing.
		
Click to expand...

*


> I didn't do it because it was cheaper. I didn't do it because it was easier. I did it because I could improve my work and get the results I wanted. *The advances in technology permit me to do better work -- good reason to adopt those advances. *You can't get good results from a digital camera -- your problem. *I get excellent results from a digital camera; better than was possible using film.* You don't want to learn -- again your problem.



For me the best part of digital is the ability to see the end results in a timely fashion - back in the old days with film since I didn't do my own developing it was pretty standard that I'd end up shooting a roll of film and by the time I got it developed it might be weeks or even as much as a month or two after the fact.  With digital I see the results that night, and it's timely enough that I have a much better recollection of the situation I was in when the picture was taken and how to adjust so I get better results

But unlike Bach, it was not enough to cause me to wet myself.. lol


----------



## KenC (Dec 27, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> But unlike Bach, it was not enough to cause me to wet myself.. lol



Well, you'll just have to try harder, won't you?


----------



## Ysarex (Dec 27, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > Bach would have peed his pants in delight to see a pipe organ that made a sound when you pressed the key and not a half second later.
> ...



About 40 odd years ago when I was still an undergrad I had a chance to play an old tracker organ. If you think about the size of a pipe organ and realize that pressing a key has to open a value that will sound the pipe you can understand the problem. Back centuries ago before electricity (you know, film era ;-)) it had to be mechanical. The instrument builders were brilliant mechanical engineers but there's no way they could rig the whole thing up to get an immediate key press-sound response. So you'd press the keys and nothing would happen and then a moment later you hear the sound. A very bizarre experience to try and move your hands over the keys playing music that came out of the pipes on a constant delay. Makes listening to a Bach toccata all the more amazing when you realize they had to play it out of physical/audio sync.

Joe


----------



## robbins.photo (Dec 27, 2014)

KenC said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > But unlike Bach, it was not enough to cause me to wet myself.. lol
> ...



Drinking much more water, even as we speak.. lol


----------



## robbins.photo (Dec 27, 2014)

Ysarex said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > Ysarex said:
> ...



It is pretty amazing to think of the skill it takes to overcome some of the technological challenges of the day.  But admittedly I'm still trying to get past the image of Bach running around with visible trouser shower.


----------



## bribrius (Dec 28, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> bribrius, I think you're blaming digital technology for something it is not guilty of.
> 
> Digital has attracted and enabled a lot of people to start doing photography. It's also encouraged the attitude that photography is a set of technical problems to be solved. This had always been with us, but digital has opened this world up to a whole lot more people.
> 
> ...


yeah well, we can all still parlay and be friendly despite our style or photographic "beliefs" i would think.


The_Traveler said:


> This shooting raw stuff is just a continuation of your method of learning by trying something without knowing why i know why to shoot raw, and if i needed to i was doing it. and then you come a ceopper and decide it's someone else's fault because it isn't working well this is true, i mad. And didn't have to take that advice it was my own fault.
> 
> You aren't trying to learn in any organized way so you're wasting time and energy re-inventing the wheel all the time. you keep saying this, and i will admit in some things i am not organizing very well but you lost me on the learning and reinventing the wheel thing.
> This was possible when you bought film and sent it off to be processed because most of the important decisions are already made outside of your hands. You mean as in shooting jpeg? could be why i like jpeg so much.
> ...


well geez lew. i am not shooting jpegs for everything, lot of stuff, but not everything..how am i wrong? If you could explain the wasting time reinventing the wheel thing that could be interesting. If you really think i am wasting too much time on something i sure want to know it what it is and how to stream line. Quick and easy is my friend that is why i like these jpegs so much..


----------



## sashbar (Dec 28, 2014)

Some say that shooting film makes you think, because you need to be more economical with your film.  This might be beneficial, providing, of course, that you are capable of it. I mean - thinking.  I am not a big fan of this theory, but there certainly is some truth in it.

My point is - you may treat JPEGs in the same way. Shooting JPEGs makes you more disciplined and aware of your exposures, because you know that your margin of error is much smaller compared to RAW. 

 With growing dynamic range and flexibility of RAW files more and more photographers buy top cameras for one reason: they have adopted the Shoot and Pray style. (Similar to Spray and Pray).  They see a difficult, wide dynamic range exposure and do not care about the key tones and other things, that were important for photographers in the film/early digital era. They know they can boost their exposure by two or three stops in pp, adjust tones, do some local adjustments and in the end make it look "better" than reality. 

Some may say that modern cameras liberate you from technical problems and allow you to concentrate on the creative, artistic side.  But the experience shows much more intrinsic relations between  technical aspects of a photo and creativity of the photographer.  Very often technical awareness leads to creative prowess. A need for a correct exposure makes you analyse the scene and it's dynamics and light in a way that opens your creative potential. That is pretty obvious to me. 

Top modern cameras often allow you to bypass this process, and lots and lots of new photogs adopt this "RAW Style"  -  see something interesting, set your shutter speed and aperture, point, shoot and then work on it in pp.  Paradoxically top DSLRs are quickly turning into point and shoot cameras for enthusiasts with more and more emphasis being shifted to post processing. 

I actually do not think it is all that bad, because it attracts a lot of people to photography which is a good thing. But it certainly has it's negatives, and the worst - it limits your creativity. 

So you may shoot JPEGs because you are just lazy, or you may shoot JPEGs because you want to nail it in the camera.  A lot of photogs find it more exiting to get it perfect in the first place. In a way it is akin of film photography these days.  Let me put it this way: JPEG is XXI century film. 

One of the  reasons why I switched from Nikon to FUJI recently was FUJI's JPEG files. In my view FUJI nails JPEGs as no other camera on the market. The white balance, the colours, tone gradation, details -  when the exposure is correct, there is simply no reason to mess with the RAW file. I shoot JPEG much more than I used to, and switch to JPEG + RAW as soon as I see a wide dynamic range or when the light gets difficult and I am not certain what to expose for 

I just find this strategy make my life easier, saves a lot of time and to help me to improve at the same time. 

We all care about the results, and some even claim that the end product is all and everything and it does not matter how did we get to it. Probably it is correct for pros who treat it as a job that they do not really like. But if it is your hobby, the process must be fun. A perfect exposure is fun for some. For other turning a bad exposure into a good image is more fun.  

But I still think that photography should stay as it is - the process of capturing an image, not constructing it on you 'puter screen. Otherwise we can lose the very essence of it. 

So long live JPEGs.


----------



## gsgary (Dec 28, 2014)

Ysarex said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > well geesh joe, we already sold out like whores going digital much like the churches dumped most of the grand pipe organs to save a buck and got plastic synthesized keyboards. I get we should know how to use the keyboard to a extent but do we really need to pretend it is art like this and the same as the grand pipe organ?
> ...


If you like churches with real pipe organs you need to live in the UK


----------



## Gary A. (Dec 28, 2014)

sashbar said:


> ...
> 
> Some may say that modern cameras liberate you from technical problems and allow you to concentrate on the creative, artistic side.  But the experience shows much more intrinsic relations between  technical aspects of a photo and creativity of the photographer.  Very often technical awareness leads to creative prowess. A need for a correct exposure makes you analyse the scene and it's dynamics and light in a way that opens your creative potential. That is pretty obvious to me.
> 
> ...


Damn Sashbar, my thoughts but in a much more logical and clear fashion than what I could ever pen. Looking hard at the technical end of the image helps me compose and expose on the creative end and vice versa.


----------



## Tinderbox (UK) (Dec 28, 2014)

I always shoot in RAW, and use the free program "Instant jpeg from raw" to extract the embedded jpeg if friends or family need a quick copy, and with Nikon the embedded jpeg is full resolution  other brands may have low resolution, and it only takes a few seconds to extract a directory full, it`s really fast.

John.


----------



## Designer (Dec 28, 2014)

bribrius said:


> If you really think i am wasting too much time on something i sure want to know it what it is and how to stream line.



Too much angst and then writing about it.

Just shoot, post, and learn.


----------



## bribrius (Dec 28, 2014)

. [/QUOTE]

Too much angst and then writing about it.

Just shoot, post, and learn.[/QUOTE]okay I just randomly picked something and posted it.


----------



## Ysarex (Dec 28, 2014)

sashbar said:


> ......So you may shoot JPEGs because you are just lazy, or you may shoot JPEGs because you want to nail it in the camera.  A lot of photogs find it more exiting to get it perfect in the first place. In a way it is akin of film photography these days.  Let me put it this way: JPEG is XXI century film.
> 
> One of the reasons why I switched from Nikon to FUJI recently was FUJI's JPEG files. In my view FUJI nails JPEGs as no other camera on the market....



First, forgive me all for adding any more to this thread. 

So Sashbar, I have one of the same Fuji X series cameras (X-E2) and I was out for a walk this afternoon. I have to admit I've had the camera for over a year now and have never created a single JPEG with it. So today I tried a few and I couldn't find the setting that lets me assign different tone curves to local areas of the image. Where is that in the menus?

Joe


----------



## bribrius (Dec 28, 2014)

off topic I guess but I just picked up adobe essential and premier primarily for video, I guess that is what it is geared to. Is it worth editing in essentials or should I just stick with capture? I really don't know jack about any of them. I thought about lightroom but figured essentials came with the movie addition I wanted and seemed more family oriented which is a lot of what I do when I am not pretending I am a photographer..  just installing now. can you even edit much in essentials?


----------



## Gary A. (Dec 28, 2014)

Capture 1 pro is a professional level photo manipulation program. I am not familiar with Essentials, but I do have Capture 1 and I am planning to move 100% into Capture 1 when I feel Aperture is no longer viable. Since you got 'em, I suggest you try both and see what works best for you. It is hard for me to imagine Photoshop Elements 11(?) out performing Capture 1.


----------



## bribrius (Dec 28, 2014)

Gary A. said:


> Capture 1 pro is a professional level photo manipulation program. I am not familiar with Essentials, but I do have Capture 1 and I am planning to move 100% into Capture 1 when I feel Aperture is no longer viable. Since you got 'em, I suggest you try both and see what works best for you. It is hard for me to imagine Photoshop Elements 11(?) out performing Capture 1.


elements 13.  if it is that bad maybe I should return it and just buy the individual premier copy??


----------



## Ysarex (Dec 28, 2014)

bribrius said:


> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> > Capture 1 pro is a professional level photo manipulation program. I am not familiar with Essentials, but I do have Capture 1 and I am planning to move 100% into Capture 1 when I feel Aperture is no longer viable. Since you got 'em, I suggest you try both and see what works best for you. It is hard for me to imagine Photoshop Elements 11(?) out performing Capture 1.
> ...



The biggest drawback to Elements is it's inability to edit 16 bit files. It has a trimmed back version of ACR included which ironically can output a 16 bit file that then has to be converted down to 8 bits for Elements to edit. It's tone-editing functions are reasonable. It's color editing functions however are pretty poor.

Joe


----------



## bribrius (Dec 28, 2014)

Ysarex said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > Gary A. said:
> ...


so for photography it sucks, pretty much.


----------



## Ysarex (Dec 28, 2014)

bribrius said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > bribrius said:
> ...



Depends on what you want and the level at which you want to work and what you'd use it for -- good for cloning out spots on a JPEG or prepping JPEGs to put on FB.

Joe


----------



## bribrius (Dec 28, 2014)

Ysarex said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > Ysarex said:
> ...


have to think about that one. I put better stuff on my facebook than anywhere else. Family sees that ya know..


----------



## imagemaker46 (Dec 28, 2014)

bribrius said:


> unless you have to do serious editing I just don't see the point. And now after the last raw vs. jpeg debate I pulled mostly all raw figuring i will give it a shot. . in return for that, I have like 700 images to edit in which 670 or so would have been fine straight jpeg. Some probably better straight jpeg because since i don't really want to edit them all im not exactly doing a stellar job at it.  plus I have to convert all the them, plus my back up just sucked up all these raw files wasting space. so i have to delete the raws from the backup and replace them with smaller jpegs.  Tempted to do a batch edit and just toss out about half that don't make it.
> 
> damn it, i knew i shouldn't have listened wth was i thinking. Talk about a waste of time and energy...
> 
> ...


I've never shot raw, just don't see the point when I don't need it.  Tough to lay blame on anyone else except yourself.  You tried, you learned. End of story.


----------



## gsgary (Dec 29, 2014)

Gary A. said:


> Capture 1 pro is a professional level photo manipulation program. I am not familiar with Essentials, but I do have Capture 1 and I am planning to move 100% into Capture 1 when I feel Aperture is no longer viable. Since you got 'em, I suggest you try both and see what works best for you. It is hard for me to imagine Photoshop Elements 11(?) out performing Capture 1.


I also use Capture One I love the colours it produces and how easy it is to use


----------

