# Why to shoot in raw mode.



## PropilotBW (Sep 16, 2014)

I came across a link that I thought was very interesting and may sway me to never shoot in JPEG again.   
I shot my last vacation entirely in RAW and immediately realized I was able to salvage photos, that I probably didn't realize we're salvageable, by using Lightroom. 
It's a good link for beginners to understand the benefit of shooting in RAW. 

Why to shoot in Raw mode - Two compelling reasons - farbspiel photography


----------



## snerd (Sep 16, 2014)




----------



## WayneF (Sep 16, 2014)

PropilotBW said:


> I came across a link that I thought was very interesting and may sway me to never shoot in JPEG again.
> I shot my last vacation entirely in RAW and immediately realized I was able to salvage photos, that I probably didn't realize we're salvageable, by using Lightroom.
> It's a good link for beginners to understand the benefit of shooting in RAW.



My notion was that the two compelling reasons did not have great significance, but I agree tremendously with your point about salvaging results.  Not really meaning the awful results (who ever has that problem?   ), but instead, just sufficiently fixing our routine shots.  White balance and minor exposure issues can make so much difference.

I would offer the video near page top here:  Why shoot Raw?


----------



## KmH (Sep 16, 2014)

*PHOTO EDITING & POST-PROCESSING*
Image Files

Understanding Bit Depth

Understanding Image Types: JPEG & TIFF

Understanding RAW Files: Why Should I Use RAW?


----------



## Derrel (Sep 16, 2014)

snerd said:


>



That *I shoot RAW* T-shirt can get you kicked out of some malls in the USA!!!!!!!!


----------



## snerd (Sep 16, 2014)

Derrel said:


> That *I shoot RAW* T-shirt can get you kicked out of some malls in the USA!!!!!!!!


No way!!

Really?!

BTW, I tend to avoid malls. A shooters paradise.


----------



## WayneF (Sep 16, 2014)

To non-photographers, Raw probably means naked.      May have influenced the T shirt design too?


----------



## Younique Images (Sep 17, 2014)

I do a lot of work for websites ( mine and others ) I could not justifiably shoot raw and add more work in photoshop. If I am going to use the photos for some wicked  digital art I lots of layers, ect I shoot raw...save it raw them save it in jpeg for website stuff.
I almost went nuts the first time I shot raw..lol 100+ images that took more time then I was paid for.


----------



## Vince.1551 (Sep 17, 2014)

I don't see the difference, in terms of time, processing adjustments in JPEG or Raw in LR. Neither can I see the same in PS. Generally the file format do not determine the length of time for adjustments. PS is not meant for batch processing (you can automate some task). If you have loads of images to work on then you should be on LR not PS. I repeat it's not about the file format (though raw and tiff provides greater PP potentials) it's the user, purpose and the tools he chose or the lack of knowledge for these. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Big Mike (Sep 17, 2014)

Vince.1551 said:


> I don't see the difference, in terms of time, processing adjustments in JPEG or Raw in LR. Neither can I see the same in PS. Generally the file format do not determine the length of time for adjustments. PS is not meant for batch processing (you can automate some task). If you have loads of images to work on then you should be on LR not PS. I repeat it's not about the file format (though raw and tiff provides greater PP potentials) it's the user, purpose and the tools he chose or the lack of knowledge for these.



I agree with the your point.  For the most part, working with raw files in LR is practically as fast as working with JPEGs in LR.  Most people who associate raw files with taking a long time, are probably thinking of a non-LR workflow.  

That being said, when time really is of the essence, jpegs (especially small jpegs) can be much faster.
I shoot weddings with a photographer who does up a quick slide show at the reception.  So up until that point, we shoot RAW+small JPEG.  He copies the small jpegs off of the cards in only a few seconds, where as it would take several minutes, just to get the raw files off of the cards.  It's also quicker to import and process the small jpeg files.  

But that is really the only time I shoot JPEG.


----------



## cynicaster (Sep 17, 2014)

RAW is definitely worth it and something that every DSLR photographer should learn about.  

BUT--and this is something I don't see get mentioned nearly often enough in threads like this--any newcomer expecting to shoot RAW and magically have the quality of their work vaulted into the stratosphere as a result is going to be sorely disappointed.  RAW doesn't truly start to pay dividends until you learn how to take advantage of it. Until you learn, there is a chance that the camera's JPEG's will be just as good (if not better) than the results you obtain from noobish RAW processing.


----------



## rexbobcat (Sep 17, 2014)

I see RAW as the difference between buying a highly processed pre-made cake from the store and making your own from scratch.

The one from the store is quick and easy, but a homemade cake can be much more creative and tastes much better (most of the time)


----------



## ronlane (Sep 17, 2014)

snerd said:


>



I KNEW Snerd was a Froniac.... lol Don't try to wear it to Six Flags (Probably not Frontier City either, since they are owned by the same company.).


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 17, 2014)

rexbobcat said:


> I see RAW as the difference between buying a highly processed pre-made cake from the store and making your own from scratch.
> 
> The one from the store is quick and easy, but a homemade cake can be much more creative and tastes much better (most of the time)




My food analogy is more like ordering a ham and cheese sandwich, fries and a soda for lunch.

With JPEG, the sandwich you are served is what you have to eat. With raw, you can change it to chipped beef on rye, or turkey and bacon on wheat, or even a hamburger with extra barbecue sauce. You can also change the fries to onion rings or potato chips, and the soda can be decaffeinated coffee or iced tea.


----------



## cynicaster (Sep 17, 2014)

I didn't know that people still wore "I Shoot Raw" t-shirts.  I figured (was hoping?) they had long ago joined similar garments ("Winning", "Git 'R Done", "Take Me Drunk, I'm Home", etc.) at Value Village.


----------



## Braineack (Sep 17, 2014)

snerd said:


>


Looks like my new avatar.  A primate definitely took that


----------



## richardbenson2110 (Nov 22, 2014)

Its up to you raw or any format what i think is to learn basic stuff then you will be able to distinguish in other mode too..


----------



## sashbar (Nov 22, 2014)

480sparky said:


> My food analogy is more like ordering a ham and cheese sandwich, fries and a soda for lunch.
> 
> With JPEG, the sandwich you are served is what you have to eat. With raw, you can change it to chipped beef on rye, or turkey and bacon on wheat, or even a hamburger with extra barbecue sauce. You can also change the fries to onion rings or potato chips, and the soda can be decaffeinated coffee or iced tea.



My analogy is - when you go a restaurant, do not really know what you want, and the menu is a mistery to you, order RAW, just in case... If you know exactly what you want and what to expect, you can safely order JPEG.  But to be able to do this you need a really good restaurant, i.e. a camera that produces first rate, excellent JPEGs. And there are not many.


----------



## D-B-J (Nov 22, 2014)

The amount of detail I can pull from blown highlights or featureless shadows with a RAW D800 file blows my mind. I could never make the same photo with JPEGs. It's that simple.


----------



## Tinderbox (UK) (Nov 22, 2014)

I only shoot raw myself, but if i need a quick jpeg, i use the free "Instant Jpeg from Raw"  if extracts the preview jpeg from the raw, and it`s very fast, it can extract a hundred raw in a couple of seconds.

Some brands of camera use smaller resolution preview jpegs in the raw, but i think Nikon uses the full size.

Instant JPEG from Raw

John.


----------



## pixmedic (Nov 22, 2014)

I shoot raw because that's what all the pros say I have to shoot in, and I sure don't want to look like a n00b in front of the pros.


----------



## WayneF (Nov 22, 2014)

Tinderbox (UK) said:


> I only shoot raw myself, but if i need a quick jpeg, i use the free "Instant Jpeg from Raw"  if extracts the preview jpeg from the raw, and it`s very fast, it can extract a hundred raw in a couple of seconds.



Or you can get the JPG by opening a raw file in Irfanview.  It has a batch mode, but it is not a Raw editor, it can only get the embedded JPG.


----------



## bribrius (Nov 22, 2014)

I shoot jpeg a 100 percent of the time and raw 30 percent of the time.


----------



## greybeard (Nov 22, 2014)

I shoot both


----------



## Mr. Innuendo (Nov 22, 2014)

I shoot raw on occasion, but I normally shoot jpeg. Yes, there are instances when the increased flexibility is a benefit, but I find that I rarely encounter those instances.


----------



## Gary A. (Nov 22, 2014)

I shoot RAW. I feel that I am good enough to shoot JPEG.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Nov 22, 2014)

Another Raw/jpeg thread. i shoot jpegs, always have and always will. i have no interest in shooting anything in raw.  I have no issues with anyone shooting Raw, that's great if they want to tinker in lightroom or photoshop, i just like to get the images as close to being correct in camera where all I have to make are minor corrections.  For the overall uses of my images, Raw is not necessary.  it's just a personal choice.

i make my own cakes, pies and cookies from scratch and yes they are better than store bought, but when I take pictures of them I still shoot jpegs.


----------



## snerd (Nov 22, 2014)

imagemaker46 said:


> Another Raw/jpeg thread. i shoot jpegs, always have and always will. i have no interest in shooting anything in raw.  I have no issues with anyone shooting Raw, that's great if they want to tinker in lightroom or photoshop, i just like to get the images as close to being correct in camera where all I have to make are minor corrections.  For the overall uses of my images, Raw is not necessary.  it's just a personal choice.
> 
> i make my own cakes, pies and cookies from scratch and yes they are better than store bought, but when I take pictures of them I still shoot jpegs.


Do you have a custom picture style? Or do you use one of the defaults?


----------



## imagemaker46 (Nov 23, 2014)

I make very few changes to the camera defaults.  I tweak a few things, but generally use defaults. To be honest I find that cameras are offering up more and more programs that I find are pointless for shooting stills. As much as I realize the video option is great for many, I have very little use for video. If I had the option of a stills only IDx I would go with that.  I try not to overcomplicate things, when it comes to cameras I'm pretty analogue.  As long as I'm getting the images that I'm seeing with the settings that I have, I'm good. I know shooting raw I can probably pull a little more information out of the images, but as I've mentioned, for what the majority of what my images are being used for it's not necessary for me.


----------



## WayneF (Nov 23, 2014)

I only shoot Raw. The advantages are simply too great.  Raw lets us actually SEE what is needed, and SEE what can be done, and SEE how well it works.  As opposed to using some settings done months ago, probably forgotten now, and wishfully hoping something works.  

Sorry, but my notion is, those insisting JPG is "good enough", either:  Probably simply don't know about the Raw advantage,  or are too lazy or too rushed or don't care about getting it right, or are terrified by the word Edit, no computer skills to attempt anything, etc.  By Edit, here I only refer to minor exposure and white balance tweaks to make it be correct.  It makes such a big difference, assuming we care.

 Raw is the easy, fast, good way.


----------



## Ysarex (Nov 23, 2014)

WayneF said:


> I only shoot Raw. The advantages are simply too great.  Raw lets us actually SEE what is needed, and SEE what can be done, and SEE how well it works.  As opposed to using some settings done months ago, probably forgotten now, and wishfully hoping something works.
> 
> Sorry, but my notion is, those insisting JPG is "good enough", either:  Probably simply don't know about the Raw advantage,  or are too lazy or too rushed or don't care about getting it right, or are terrified by the word Edit, no computer skills to attempt anything, etc.  By Edit, here I only refer to minor exposure and white balance tweaks to make it be correct.  It makes such a big difference, assuming we care.
> 
> Raw is the easy, fast, good way.



I also shoot raw, but I have the luxury of doing that now. There are legitimate reasons to shoot only JPEG and have the skill to make sure that the result is indeed good enough.

Are you a camera for hire? We have a job for you. We need an auto race covered. It's a 120 lap race over a pretty tough track and the race should run over and hour. We'll need you to set up a wifi feed for you images and we'll require photos on the editors desk as the race progresses as we intend to publish coverage in real time. Within an hour of the end of the race we'll need all photos on hand here in our office.

Are you going to shoot raw?

Joe


----------



## WayneF (Nov 23, 2014)

Ysarex said:


> Are you going to shoot raw?



I included "too rushed" in my reasons.  

But your one hour states a requirement that simply does not exist for my own work.  I always have a few more minutes to do it right.  (be glad we don't shoot film any more.   )


----------



## Ysarex (Nov 23, 2014)

WayneF said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > Are you going to shoot raw?
> ...



And it doesn't exist for my work either so I shoot only raw, but I understand the requirements for those of us who shoot sports action and journalism and rather than refer to the work they do then as "good enough" I would prefer to applaud them as able to produce great images under very difficult circumstances.

So I agree I can produce a better result processing the raw original and I advocate that methodology. I just want to make sure we use careful language that recognizes legitimate alternative methods. If Scott captures an awesome football action shot in full sun and there's some highlight clipping on a player's white jersey I'm not going to call that photo "good enough" I'm going to call it an awesome photo -- making sure we stay focused on what matters.

Joe


----------



## 480sparky (Nov 23, 2014)

WayneF said:


> ...........Sorry, but my notion is, those insisting JPG is "good enough", either:  Probably simply don't know about the Raw advantage,  or are too lazy or too rushed or don't care about getting it right, or are terrified by the word Edit, no computer skills to attempt anything, etc.  By Edit, here I only refer to minor exposure and white balance tweaks to make it be correct.  It makes such a big difference, assuming we care.
> 
> Raw is the easy, fast, good way.



So what about those who MUST produce an image minutes after it's taken?  Do you expect them to carry a laptop with them at all times, and constantly download images and edit them (if nothing else, simply convert raw files to JPEG) so they can be used immediately?

Sorry... your argument just ain't gonna cut it here.  JPEGs are, in many cases, 'good enough' for their intended uses.  May not YOUR uses, but you're not the only one taking photos, are you?


----------



## WayneF (Nov 23, 2014)

480sparky said:


> So what about those who MUST produce an image minutes after it's taken?



That has been addressed, did you read the previous?  That handful of us needing immediate results certainly do have issues to address.

You must have your ideas about Good Enough, and I have mine.

I stated my notions about three reasons for resisting Raw:

Probably simply don't know about the Raw advantage,
or are too lazy or too rushed or don't care about getting it right,
or are terrified by the word Edit, no computer skills to attempt anything, etc

I realize there is no hope for the middle line, but there are hopes for the first and third line.


----------



## 480sparky (Nov 23, 2014)

WayneF said:


> ............That has been addressed, did you read the previous?  That handful of us needing immediate results certainly do have issues to address.........



Unless you quote a post, there is NO WAY for me to know you're specifically addressing it.  I'm not a Vulacan or a Betazoid, and can't read your mind.

I cannot follow your train of thought.  As such, I assume your post stands alone.


----------



## Mr. Innuendo (Nov 23, 2014)

I did a shoot last night for a local magazine, and not a single frame was shot in raw. 

Not.

One.

The Editor was quite happy with what I sent her and has paid me so, no, there was no reason for me to shoot raw.

I'm of the opinion that those who say "YOU GOTTA' SHOOT IN RAW!" say that because that's what they've always been told, or they just unable to produce suitable images in jpeg.

Far more often than not, jpeg is, indeed, "good enough"...


----------



## runnah (Nov 23, 2014)

This again?!!?

I will say what I say about "mode" topics; a good photographer knows when to use what tool in their arsenal.

Limiting your toolset just limits you.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Nov 23, 2014)

I get pretty tired of geeks going on and on that raw is the only way to shoot.  I am not always rushed to get images out, but the majority of my shoots require 25-70 images within an hour of shooting.  I'm not lazy when it comes to how I shoot, I'm not afraid to edit images and I have excellent computer  and photo shop skills when it comes to turning out the images I need.  What WayneF has to say is coming from, what is it he shoots?  I don't think he has said. I did look at his blog and it goes back to the geek squad, while supplying information about everything is important to many.  I just take pictures, and I do it very well. While I am not the most tech savy photographer, it has never stopped me from producing high quality images with every shoot I'm on. All jpegs, I have never been asked to shoot raw files by any clients.

The pro football team I shoot for will be switching to wifi next season, which means I'm shooting and images are going to the web guy to pull what he needs instantly, to cut down on post game time.  Would I ever consider sending him raw images? Not a chance.  What it does do, puts more pressure on me to get the images as perfect in camera as possible, does that mean I need to shoot raw, no, jpegs will get the job done and not "just" good enough.

The raw/jpeg subject is tired and getting older everyday.


----------



## greybeard (Nov 23, 2014)

imagemaker46 said:


> I get pretty tired of geeks going on and on that raw is the only way to shoot.  I am not always rushed to get images out, but the majority of my shoots require 25-70 images within an hour of shooting.  I'm not lazy when it comes to how I shoot, I'm not afraid to edit images and I have excellent computer  and photo shop skills when it comes to turning out the images I need.  What WayneF has to say is coming from, what is it he shoots?  I don't think he has said. I did look at his blog and it goes back to the geek squad, while supplying information about everything is important to many.  I just take pictures, and I do it very well. While I am not the most tech savy photographer, it has never stopped me from producing high quality images with every shoot I'm on. All jpegs, I have never been asked to shoot raw files by any clients.
> 
> The pro football team I shoot for will be switching to wifi next season, which means I'm shooting and images are going to the web guy to pull what he needs instantly, to cut down on post game time.  Would I ever consider sending him raw images? Not a chance.  What it does do, puts more pressure on me to get the images as perfect in camera as possible, does that mean I need to shoot raw, no, jpegs will get the job done and not "just" good enough.
> 
> The raw/jpeg subject is tired and getting older everyday.


Kinda like shooting slides back in the day.


----------



## greybeard (Nov 23, 2014)

I have my D7000 setup to save Raw on #1 card and JPEG on #2.  I usually import the Raw in to Lightroom and if needed, edit with PS.  This is the routine that works for me.  The JPEGs are backup.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Nov 23, 2014)

greybeard said:


> I have my D7000 setup to save Raw on #1 card and JPEG on #2.  I usually import the Raw in to Lightroom and if needed, edit with PS.  This is the routine that works for me.  The JPEGs are backup.


That's taking advantage of the tools you are using.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Nov 23, 2014)

greybeard said:


> imagemaker46 said:
> 
> 
> > I get pretty tired of geeks going on and on that raw is the only way to shoot.  I am not always rushed to get images out, but the majority of my shoots require 25-70 images within an hour of shooting.  I'm not lazy when it comes to how I shoot, I'm not afraid to edit images and I have excellent computer  and photo shop skills when it comes to turning out the images I need.  What WayneF has to say is coming from, what is it he shoots?  I don't think he has said. I did look at his blog and it goes back to the geek squad, while supplying information about everything is important to many.  I just take pictures, and I do it very well. While I am not the most tech savy photographer, it has never stopped me from producing high quality images with every shoot I'm on. All jpegs, I have never been asked to shoot raw files by any clients.
> ...


Before digital I would shoot the first period of a pro hockey game, process the film, scan and transmit to Reuters in Washington, all had to be done as quick as possible, first images out made the papers.  Digital is pretty much the same.


----------



## Gary A. (Nov 23, 2014)

imagemaker46 said:


> greybeard said:
> 
> 
> > imagemaker46 said:
> ...


Back when I was shooting news, printing from wet negatives was very common for me. For big games at the Rose Bowl, the Forum or Coliseum, we had messengers on motorcycles. Every 20 minutes or so a run would be made from the event to the office/darkroom downtown Los Angeles. Then the photogs manning the darkrooms printed from wet negatives. (We had individual darkrooms.)


----------



## imagemaker46 (Nov 23, 2014)

Gary A. said:


> imagemaker46 said:
> 
> 
> > greybeard said:
> ...



Those were the good old days?  There are some days I miss that rush, and then other days wonder how we even managed.


----------



## Gary A. (Nov 23, 2014)

imagemaker46 said:


> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> > imagemaker46 said:
> ...


Yep. I just remembered ... for the BIG games ... like the Rose Bowl game, we even had people just to load our cameras. So when the camera died at 36 frames, we handed it to our little sherpa friend and they would hand us a new camera, loaded and ready to go. The little sherpa rewound, reloaded and stuck it in the film appropriate envelope. The film envelop had development instructions (like "ONLY AGITATE ONCE") as well as descriptions/caption information of the images.  The motorcycle messenger was uniformed and looked like a cop.

WIFI is a dream. All the news photogs I know shoot JPEG because they have to. I had six daily deadline I had to hit. With the internet, there are no deadlines ... it is all Now! That's gotta increase the stress and much more demanding of the photog. Non-WiFi you can shoot a ton and make a lot of mistakes and nobody will know. With WiFi, you probably don't have much time to delete the crap or at least part of the crap ... so the editors don't have to wade through all your dirty underwear.

Gary


----------



## imagemaker46 (Nov 24, 2014)

Gary A. said:


> imagemaker46 said:
> 
> 
> > Gary A. said:
> ...


As much as I don't mind the thought of using the wifi next football season, you are right about being able to edit that crap out. I'm sure the stress level will be a little higher.


----------



## Village Idiot (Nov 24, 2014)

WayneF said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > So what about those who MUST produce an image minutes after it's taken?
> ...



Aside from recovering blown highlights or under exposed shadows to a point, if you can’t edit a JPG as well as you can a RAW file, then you need to go back to the drawing board. With Photo Shop once you open the file past the first Adobe raw editor you can make the exact same edits and once in PS, you can do the same edits past recovering exposure that you can in ACR.

It’s more important to be able to get it right in camera than it is to use RAW as an crutch for fixing your photos in PS.


----------



## Ysarex (Nov 24, 2014)

Village Idiot said:


> Aside from recovering blown highlights or under exposed shadows to a point, if you can’t edit a JPG as well as you can a RAW file, then you need to go back to the drawing board. With Photo Shop once you open the file past the first Adobe raw editor you can make the exact same edits and once in PS, you can do the same edits past recovering exposure that you can in ACR.



No. There is a difference of consequence between editing an 8 bit file with an embedded compression grid as compared to editing a 16 bit file that has never been compressed. You can not do the same edits and you do not get the same results.



Village Idiot said:


> It’s more important to be able to get it right in camera than it is to use RAW as an crutch for fixing your photos in PS.



It is always important make a best effort in-camera. Never shoot raw as a crutch but instead shoot raw to extend your capability beyond the limits of the automated JPEG processor in the camera.

Joe


----------



## KenC (Nov 24, 2014)

I think Joe nailed it.  In some cases, I want a lot more contrast than the default conversion to jpg would give.  Bending the curve to do this with a 14 bit file (that's my understanding of what raw files actually have) produces much less in the way of artifacts than doing it on an 8-bit jpg.


----------



## bribrius (Nov 24, 2014)

KenC said:


> I think Joe nailed it.  In some cases, I want a lot more contrast than the default conversion to jpg would give.  Bending the curve to do this with a 14 bit file (that's my understanding of what raw files actually have) produces much less in the way of artifacts than doing it on an 8-bit jpg.


good point. seems you mess with a jpeg too much you get those "artifacts" but I thought that was more a compression issue and resizing over and over?


----------



## WayneF (Nov 24, 2014)

Village Idiot said:


> Aside from recovering blown highlights or under exposed shadows to a point, if you can’t edit a JPG as well as you can a RAW file, then you need to go back to the drawing board.



Simply not true.  You must not have any Raw experience?   Minor adjustments can work in JPG, but any major shifts suffer seriously.  Raw has much more range for edit.  Shoot a JPG in Incandescent but as Flash, and then try to fix it? (enough to actually be good).  

But there is much more...



> With Photo Shop once you open the file past the first Adobe raw editor you can make the exact same edits and once in PS, you can do the same edits past recovering exposure that you can in ACR.



Raw has camera oriented tools, like White Balance and Exposure tools.  Photo editors don't.
Photo editors (including Photoshop) have graphic oriented tools, general purpose.
Like PS Color Balance...  RGB Color Balance has three adjustments for Shadows, Midtones, Highlghts, possibly meant to be versatile, but what we need is an easy tool that does WB on the whole photo range.  Plus it is RGB.  How do we do those three RGB, and the three tonal degrees, in the right porportions for WB?
Yes, we can shift to Lab color to have the two necessary sliders (aka WB), but there is still the three: Shadows, Midtones, Highlghts.

Raw offers the actual WB tools, two sliders instead of six,, excellent tools for the specific purpose. Calibrated in degrees K.  Plus presets for Daylight, Incandescent, Auto, etc.
Easy, fast, good.  Built for the job.
And while Levels White Point is Exposure, Raw calls it Exposure.  

Plus Raw is lossless edit, and RGB is not.  We are always working from the baseline of the original raw image pixels (we can uncrop for example).  Then *Raw does any data  tonal shifting only the one final time* to output RGB.
In RGB (JPG), one edit starts at the previous edits results, needlessly shifting tones back and forth. That's not good. That's the pits.
(OK, Adobe Raw software does also offer opportunity to do lossless edits on JPG, and the Raw tools are better, but JPG is still 8 bits).

These are all pretty big deals for anyone that knows and cares.  Not everyone does know or care. But if you care, and have a few extra minutes, you should try Raw. It can change your life.  

Sports photogs with a one hour schedule certainly do have a rush issue. Fortunately, they are blessed with most shots being the same field scene, one setup.   Wedding has it tougher, indoors in a dark church, outdoors in sunny reception, etc.
Amateur has it worst, in all possible conceivable scenes.   Needs more individual attention.


----------



## KenC (Nov 24, 2014)

bribrius said:


> KenC said:
> 
> 
> > I think Joe nailed it.  In some cases, I want a lot more contrast than the default conversion to jpg would give.  Bending the curve to do this with a 14 bit file (that's my understanding of what raw files actually have) produces much less in the way of artifacts than doing it on an 8-bit jpg.
> ...



Yes, you can trash a jpg by saving at low quality and/or saving many times, but even without doing that, you can get artifacts from 8 bit files.  The issue of heavy edits is that "stretching" your data to create more contrast can give you banding.  Pixels in an 8 bit file are far more limited in the possible gradations of brightness and color they can represent.  If you increase contrast enough, there could be visible differences in brightness/color, with one area having the same values (sort of analogous to rounding error making two numbers look the same, where they would be represented differently with more decimal places) and an adjacent area having the next possible set of values.  You see this often in skies that have been darkened and saturated dramatically from the original jpg.


----------



## Ysarex (Nov 24, 2014)

bribrius said:


> KenC said:
> 
> 
> > I think Joe nailed it.  In some cases, I want a lot more contrast than the default conversion to jpg would give.  Bending the curve to do this with a 14 bit file (that's my understanding of what raw files actually have) produces much less in the way of artifacts than doing it on an 8-bit jpg.
> ...



A lot folks edit JPEGs and do so with reasonable success. I spend a lot of time teaching Photo students how to do that and to cause the least amount of harm in the process.

Editing JPEGs means you're working with an 8 bit file (8 bits per 3 channels is a defining characteristic of JPEG). That is a data set or if you like a data container. It holds a fixed amount of data. A 16 bit file is a larger data container. It likewise holds a fixed amount of data but compared with a JPEG it holds a whole lot more data.

Try this analog: You have to create a mosaic from different colored tiles. Your finished mosaic must include 10,000 tiles to be complete. Your tiles are all 1/8 inch square and you have 50,000 of them extending over a range of 4000 colors. You have multiples of each color but no more than 4000 colors. I have to create the same mosaic with the same size tiles and end up with 10,000 tiles to be complete -- same job. I however have 200,000 tiles extending over a range of 16,000 colors. We have different data set limits and my extra tiles and extra colors means I can do more.

All JPEGs are compressed and must be compressed. Even at highest quality JPEGs are compressed. At 8 bits per channel over three channels (RGB) a photo can reproduce 16,777,216 different colors. Photographic data is very dense. Take a section of your photo and mark off an 8 pixel square area. You have 64 pixels in that square. The odds (64 in 16,777,216) are pretty good that each of those 64 pixels will be a unique color. JPEG does in fact place an 8 pixel grid over your entire photo and it's job is to make sure that those grid squares no longer contain 64 uniquely colored pixels. Given the compression level JPEG may do it's job and return the photo so that those grid squares contain no more than 32 unique pixels (that's high quality) or no more than 24 unique pixels or no more than 16 unique pixels and so forth. This is what allows JPEG to achieve it's compression rates. This is a good thing -- JPEG is very useful when understood and used appropriately.

So when you open a JPEG for editing the compression has been done and it can't be undone. Let's go back to our mosaic. A mosaic works because our eyes blend the content of adjacent tiles to form the whole image. Your mosaic (8 bit) and my mosaic (16 bit) are finished. Yours now has to be compressed. So you have to analyze the color tiles you used to create your mosaic and pull and replace tiles so that when finished there are no more than 256 unique colors in your mosaic. Mine stays untouched. All of our excess tiles are taken away and then our client comes along and says, "Opps! hey we have a problem and these changes have to be made." You go to work changing yours and I'll go to work changing mine.

As you edit a JPEG the compression grid is there and it can't be removed. If you make minor changes you can get away with it because we tend to have more pixels (tiles) than we need and we still have some leeway. But you can only go so far before that compression grid starts to surface out of the photo. That's the artifacts we see when we push a JPEG edit -- the compression grid is rising out of the image.

Finally think of it this way: All image editing is partially destructive. A good analogy here is surgery. You develop a hernia and require an operation. Getting that operation is a really good thing and you really want it and need it, but they're still going to cut you and it will leave a scar. All photo editing is double-edged. The goal is to do maximum good with minimum harm. (You're hoping your hernia surgery can be done with the smallest possible incision). So assume you have a choice to perform a photo edit using method 1 where you do 95% good and 5% harm or method 2 where you do 70% good and 30% harm. That should be an easy choice. Editing JPEGs is choosing method 2.

Joe


----------



## WayneF (Nov 24, 2014)

Ysarex said:


> All JPEGs are compressed and must be compressed. Even at highest quality JPEGs are compressed.



Very true,  and JPG artifacts are indeed one more good reason for Raw editing over photo editors. Basically, JPG compression just approximates (changes color of) the JPG pixels (to be other values more easily compressed - grids of 8x8 pixels made all the same color). There are two types of these artifacts, the other "edge" type is worse.  Called lossy compression because the image we get back out of the JPG file is not the same as the RGB data we thought we wrote into the file.

We can and should crank the JPG Quality up higher.    But 100% is still JPG.

Here is one look at detecting the artifacts in 100% JPG

What does JPG Quality Losses Mean?


----------



## bribrius (Nov 24, 2014)

informative. Had a basic understanding of artifacts but never really understood exactly, just knew I didn't like them. Had a little trouble recognizing them as well unless they were obvious.


----------



## jake337 (Nov 24, 2014)

imagemaker46 said:


> Another Raw/jpeg thread. i shoot jpegs, always have and always will. i have no interest in shooting anything in raw.  I have no issues with anyone shooting Raw, that's great if they want to tinker in lightroom or photoshop, i just like to get the images as close to being correct in camera where all I have to make are minor corrections.  For the overall uses of my images, Raw is not necessary.  it's just a personal choice.
> 
> i make my own cakes, pies and cookies from scratch and yes they are better than store bought, but when I take pictures of them I still shoot jpegs.



This right here has winner written all over it!


----------



## jake337 (Nov 24, 2014)

WayneF said:


> I only shoot Raw. The advantages are simply too great.  Raw lets us actually SEE what is needed, and SEE what can be done, and SEE how well it works.  As opposed to using some settings done months ago, probably forgotten now, and wishfully hoping something works.
> 
> Sorry, but my notion is, those insisting JPG is "good enough", either:  Probably simply don't know about the Raw advantage,  or are too lazy or too rushed or don't care about getting it right, or are terrified by the word Edit, no computer skills to attempt anything, etc.  By Edit, here I only refer to minor exposure and white balance tweaks to make it be correct.  It makes such a big difference, assuming we care.
> 
> Raw is the easy, fast, good way.



Have you checked out Imagemaker46's portfolio?


----------



## photoguy99 (Nov 24, 2014)

Something usually left out of the discussion is this:

Almost none of this matters if you're reducing the size of the final output. You can trade lateral resolution in for bit depth, any time, and with great success. Edit that JPEG all you want. Artifacts all over the place, ugh. Now reduce it to 640x480 for use on the web. Boom, virtually all the artifacts are gone. Ugly posterization is blended away. Block chunky crap is smoothed right out. Blown highlights are shrunk down to tiny white dots that actually look pretty good. Etc.

Since almost every photograph that is ever seen by anyone other than the photographer is radically reduced in size, it doesn't matter all that much how you do it.


----------



## WayneF (Nov 24, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> Something usually left out of the discussion is this:
> 
> Almost none of this matters if you're reducing the size of the final output. You can trade lateral resolution in for bit depth, any time, and with great success. Edit that JPEG all you want. Artifacts all over the place, ugh. Now reduce it to 640x480 for use on the web. Boom, virtually all the artifacts are gone. Ugly posterization is blended away. Block chunky crap is smoothed right out. Blown highlights are shrunk down to tiny white dots that actually look pretty good. Etc.
> 
> Since almost every photograph that is ever seen by anyone other than the photographer is radically reduced in size, it doesn't matter all that much how you do it.




Just another way to say that some people simply don't care about best quality.


----------



## 480sparky (Nov 24, 2014)

I guess we should all do things Wayne's way or else we're failures.


----------



## bribrius (Nov 24, 2014)

WayneF said:


> photoguy99 said:
> 
> 
> > Something usually left out of the discussion is this:
> ...


might have something to do with purpose of photo. Jpegs are damn good and will show negligible if any difference in many cases. some cases though, yeah, go to the raw...

course, there are those that believe every single photo has to be the highest quality artwork and are ocd. But that is another story and not often found in those that shoot a lot of general purpose photos I would think.


----------



## photoguy99 (Nov 24, 2014)

WayneF said:


> photoguy99 said:
> 
> 
> > Something usually left out of the discussion is this:
> ...



I see the smiley, but this is still a complete mischaracterization of what I said. Reality is that full sized photos are, for all practical purposes, un-viewable in any meaningful way on most computer screens. And when it's shrunk, the artifacts are _gone_. They're not just hidden, they're not there lurking. They are gone.


----------



## WayneF (Nov 24, 2014)

bribrius said:


> course, there are those that believe every single photo has to be the highest quality artwork and are ocd. But that is another story and not often found in those that shoot a lot of general purpose photos I would think.



Mine are hardly artwork, and while I've done this  camera thing for many decades, I still seem unable to guarantee every frame will be perfect.  Things just happen, you know?   The camera white balance tools are so crude. Bright sun is decent, but incandescent is impossible, and flash varies with power level.  I think it can be closer than Auto.    And reflective light meters are crude in their way.  At least sports can take time to get their first one right, and then shoot away.

But Raw is so easy and so fast and so good, they become totally trivial to fix right.  Why do you think there are so very many raw advocates?  New game in town, and I promise Raw can change your life.     One should at least look into it.


----------



## bribrius (Nov 24, 2014)

WayneF said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > course, there are those that believe every single photo has to be the highest quality artwork and are ocd. But that is another story and not often found in those that shoot a lot of general purpose photos I would think.
> ...


I steer the more important ones toward raw, the ones going to print more likely will go to raw. Or if I am planning on friggn with it then it will go to raw.  Never really felt the need to use raw for every image. Not a pro though. If I was more photos would be going to raw they would count more (paycheck)


----------



## Ysarex (Nov 24, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> Something usually left out of the discussion is this:
> 
> Almost none of this matters if you're reducing the size of the final output. You can trade lateral resolution in for bit depth, any time, and with great success. Edit that JPEG all you want. Artifacts all over the place, ugh. Now reduce it to 640x480 for use on the web. Boom, virtually all the artifacts are gone. Ugly posterization is blended away. Block chunky crap is smoothed right out. Blown highlights are shrunk down to tiny white dots that actually look pretty good. Etc.
> 
> Since almost every photograph that is ever seen by anyone other than the photographer is radically reduced in size, it doesn't matter all that much how you do it.



Absolutely right. Intended use makes all the difference and standards for expectations and best practices are established by that intended use. I regularly create JPEGs at 800x600 pixels for posting on the internet and once sampled down to that size multitudes of evils just vanish. I can plan to work that way. If that's what photography is for someone that's OK. I can adopt that standard when it's appropriate.

But I also make 16x20 prints which requires that I adopt a different set of standards. I hung four prints in a gallery last week. If I had shot and processed JPEGs those prints would not look as good as they do and no one could fix that -- one of them would have been impossible shot as a camera JPEG. *It's also OK to want to do the best possible.*

A problem with so many of these types of arguments is assuming one standard fits all or rather that "my" standard fits all.

Joe


----------



## imagemaker46 (Nov 24, 2014)

WayneF said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> > Aside from recovering blown highlights or under exposed shadows to a point, if you can’t edit a JPG as well as you can a RAW file, then you need to go back to the drawing board.
> ...



You obviously have never shot sports in changing weather conditions.  It's not set one and go. Using that statement is incorrect, and speaks to the lack of experience when being faced with changing light conditions.  Shooting any sports outdoors requires constant changes to exposures, even under lights, and is more challenging than shooting a formula wedding set up.   

Stick to the information that you know.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Nov 24, 2014)

WayneF said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > course, there are those that believe every single photo has to be the highest quality artwork and are ocd. But that is another story and not often found in those that shoot a lot of general purpose photos I would think.
> ...


Of course nothing ever changes when shooting sports, I set the exposure before I leave the house and away I go, that must be why so many people say they can shoot sports, it's only one setting to get it right.


----------



## photoguy99 (Nov 24, 2014)

They should make a sports camera that only has one shutter speed. That would save a ton of money.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Nov 24, 2014)

There are people that seem to believe that shooting sports only ever requires one thing already, having any camera and one exposure.


----------



## Gary A. (Nov 24, 2014)

bribrius said:


> WayneF said:
> 
> 
> > photoguy99 said:
> ...



" ... course, there are those that believe every single photo has to be the highest quality artwork and are ocd. But that is another story and not often found in those that shoot a lot of general purpose photos I would think."

There is absolutely nothing wrong with much of this thinking. Striving to get it right in the camera, striving to shoot for your highest standard on every frame, being able to self-critique one's images ... again, to that highest standard ... I think, is a good thing. Just be careful not to go OCD with it. Striving for excellence and being able to catch and build on your deficiencies and build on your successes is the way to go. (If photography is important to you. If it's not, then shoot jpeg.   Actually, I'm thinking of shooting jpeg just to sharpen my metering, I am getting lazy knowing I can fix it in post.)


----------



## Village Idiot (Nov 24, 2014)

WayneF said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > course, there are those that believe every single photo has to be the highest quality artwork and are ocd. But that is another story and not often found in those that shoot a lot of general purpose photos I would think.
> ...



I haven’t been doing this for ages, but I shoot extensively with non-ambient lighting mixed in with ambient lighting conditions with changing and often varying light sources and this is really the wrong way to look at it if you don’t want to spend your life fixing things in Photo Shop. Most DSLRs let you set a custom WB varying by 100 degrees which lets you get pretty damn close to white. There are also gels that allow you to alter your color temps. Unless I’m shooting a light source to purposely be a different color, I try to avoid correcting in Photo Shop. It’s not fast an easy to alter the WB of every single photo you’ve shot when you shoot lots of images. Even changing the WB on 20 separate images can be a pain. And a good flash should remain fairly constant in color temperature between power levels. I know there will be some minor variations depending on the brand, but I mean good, not Alien Bees.

RAW has its place but any good photographer should know when they should and shouldn’t use it. It’s not necessary all the time and insulting people with saying they must have no experience with it if they say it’s not needed all the time shows a certain lack of knowledge. When I shoot an event for a group that has several hundred mindless photos with the same lighting throughout, there’s no need to clog up my HDDs when I can get the shots I need with shooting JPG. When I shoot in other situations like models, engagement sessions, weddings, etc… I’ll shoot RAW files, but it’s like most everything in photography; you should know when using it will benefit you and when not using it will benefit you. It’s like pulling out a flash when it’s not needed. You may look like a professional, but you’re not doing anything to enhance your photography.


----------



## pixmedic (Nov 24, 2014)

As I drift back through past memories of identical threads, I have to admit to losing a slight chuckle at some of the age old arguments. 

Only the final product matters....
as long as you shoot in manual, raw, and get it mostly right in camera (it must be a full frame camera of course)

the real truth is...if you print that image, (or strip exif data) noone has any clue whatsoever what you shot, how you shot it, or how it was processed...The workflow is completely irrelevant, except to the person doing the work. 

Personally, and i mean strictly speaking for my own personal workflow preferences, I edit every file. yup. every file i deem not bound for circular file 13. (i only work 10 days a month, and I don't do a ton of photo work...i got time for it) Most go through LR, a small amount through PS. They all get at least some minor adjustments, even if im just moving some sliders around to see how it would look a few different ways. That being the case, there is little to no reason for me _*not*_ to shoot raw since there would be no real change in my workflow shooting jpegs, and I retain the advantage of the extra data in raw files in case i need it. 

but heres my actual answer as to why someone should shoot raw. 
ya ready?
Because you feel like it. 
yup. that's pretty much it. If it feels good, do it. 
It doesn't matter one wheat cent to me _*how *_you get the picture you wanted. In photo editing, the ends really do justify the means. 
you want to shoot in jpeg? go for it. aperture priority? full auto rapid fire? who cares. 
im sometimes amazed that there are people that care more about critiquing camera settings than the actual picture. 

crap this rant is going on forever....hold on, let me wrap this $#&^ up. 

my point is...
don't be a racist. 
raw and jpeg can coexist in harmony.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Nov 24, 2014)

I use auto WB all the time, and I have very few issues with it under most light conditions, indoors or out. Where the light is not ideal, it is generally takes seconds to fix in photoshop. I work with other photographers shooting the same events and they stress over the settings, are constantly making changes and when I tell them I haven't made any changes they look confused.  What ends up happening with some of these guys is that they make so many custom changes that they end up having to go back to the defaults and start over when the light changes.  

I shot a hockey game last week, no changes at all and then I looked at images shot by another photographer and they were all yellow, i already knew the light in this arena was a little cyan, but that is a quick fix.  I think that some people overthink everything they do, and in the end screw up.  I keep it simple and concentrate more on what I'm seeing.


----------



## bribrius (Nov 24, 2014)

pixmedic said:


> As I drift back through past memories of identical threads, I have to admit to losing a slight chuckle at some of the age old arguments.
> 
> Only the final product matters....
> as long as you shoot in manual, raw, and get it mostly right in camera (it must be a full frame camera of course)
> ...


For me it does matter how that final image is made. Don't really so much care what others do but on a personal level it really matters and I will tell you why.

I separate photography from digital imaging. while this is very difficult to do with the advent of digital cameras I believe there is still a difference. There are arguments about comparing later edits in software to the darkroom, with some merit. But entensive reliance on post process as it has become is what I consider digital imaging. which I still to a large extent, separate from getting it right in camera which I consider the primary being photography. Learning, one is best to use the theory of best practice, as in the end I believe it DOES EFFECT final image outcome if not directly than indirectly in your mentality toward doing this at all. As businesses developed best practice theory, science testing has a best practice theory in its own form etc. it seems reasonable to expect anyone engaging in a activity they hope to be proficient at would derive themselves some form of a best practice theory. .  one can separate that into photography, or post processing and digital imaging depending on where concentration is pointed. But having some basic set of practice I think is of overwhelming importance.

Beyond that there is another thing, not all photography has the main purpose of being art, and art itself is derived in many form and ways. How the art piece came into being is a direct reflection of both final outcome and in how it is perceived by self and others. There is no way to avoid this. One can say the final image is all that matters, but that is not true. If it were true the standards for that image wouldn not vary so greatly on how it is attained in formulating depending on the use of it and area in which it is attempted to be approved of. while in certain forms of art, yes, the final image is all that matters. In general, that is far from the case.
If how the art (or finished product it isn't all art) came into being, was not important. People would not base both financial value on it, rarity considerations, and keep it such a hot topic of debate all these years. There is a reason the trademark of certain products, and items in and out of the artworld is directly related with perception and value based on the way it came into being. That said, yeah, shoot whatever the hell you want to or what you deem appropriate. Perhaps those that push in camera settings and getting it right in camera are just interested in learning and practicing from a different methodology and might even be resisting the changing of photography toward a primary digital imaging platform (which we might consider less photography and more something else)


----------



## imagemaker46 (Nov 24, 2014)

They are all digital images.  I agree getting it right in camera is still something that people should strive for, but in the majority of cases that just isn't going to happen for most.  I usually make a few minor adjustments, crop where I have to, lighten/darken and subtle colour tweaks where required, but not often.  That's it, basically the same things I would do if I was printing from film.  It's still a digital image and end result is still going to be a digital image.  

I find that anything that has been drastically changed is closer to a photo illustration. HDR for example, while still a digital image is now more of an art piece than a "pure" photograph.  When I shoot sports and it is being used as editorial the changes are same as I could do with film.  I do use a lot of images for composites, it now changes them into a photo illustration/art piece.  But it is still a digital image.


----------



## Buckster (Nov 24, 2014)

Everybody's got their reasons for choosing one, the other, or both, and I can't imagine how or why that can be a problem for anyone else.

I personally choose to shoot RAW.  Always.  Sometimes, if I really think I don't need to, and will only need JPGs for whatever reason, I shoot RAW + JPG, and will end up using mostly, or even only, the JPGs.  But that RAW is always there for me, if I feel I need it for any reason.  I do that because in those "I'll only need JPGs" situations, I don't identify the "killer" shot(s) (if any) until after the fact, when it's too late to go back in time and switch to RAW.

That works for me, so that's what I do.  I figure everyone else is similarly doing what works for them, and since it doesn't affect me in any way, it's all good.


----------



## bribrius (Nov 24, 2014)

Ysarex said:


> photoguy99 said:
> 
> 
> > Something usually left out of the discussion is this:
> ...


lol. Totally agree on best practice.  I am kind of weird that way. if someone shoots film and processes the crap out of it in the darkroom I am more likely to think something like "nice rendition". They don't heavily process it I will probably think "nice photograph". They shoot jpeg and print it I might say "nice photograph" if I don't think it has been messed with to much. Anything I think is processed digitally hard, printed or not I think or say something like "nice image" as I don't even perceive it to be a photograph anymore. My own stuff is the same. I process something too much I nolonger look at it as a photo. whether I print it or not. It is a image now. Might be the way my head categorizes things. Even some more famous works by others, I find out they have been darkroom altered my mind immediately reflects that, not always subtracting value but at a minimum re-categorizing what it is depending on how much I think it was altered. so yeah, I guess it does make a difference at least for me just on how I perceive the work. Probably does for most people which might be why the years have gone on with many not fully admitting (though not hiding it either in most cases) the amount of alterations from the original capture. As they know it may make the work perceived differently. so if you told me you processed one of those gallery photos you hung heavily in certain ways my view of it would change immediately. Not always necessarily bad, just different categorization. so what is best possible may vary depending on sought final perception as much as final product.
maybe?


----------



## bribrius (Nov 24, 2014)

imagemaker46 said:


> They are all digital images.  I agree getting it right in camera is still something that people should strive for, but in the majority of cases that just isn't going to happen for most.  I usually make a few minor adjustments, crop where I have to, lighten/darken and subtle colour tweaks where required, but not often.  That's it, basically the same things I would do if I was printing from film.  It's still a digital image and end result is still going to be a digital image.
> 
> I find that anything that has been drastically changed is closer to a photo illustration. HDR for example, while still a digital image is now more of an art piece than a "pure" photograph.  When I shoot sports and it is being used as editorial the changes are same as I could do with film.  I do use a lot of images for composites, it now changes them into a photo illustration/art piece. * But it is still a digital image*.


yeah, and that kind of sucks. Just being digital seems to devalue it from film. No way around that. when you can wack off ten thousand digitals and tweak them almost endlessly in post without a care it wont have the same value. The image isn't even had by the same means from the camera as traditional photography. Maybe it is something else right from the get go.


----------



## pixmedic (Nov 24, 2014)

bribrius said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > As I drift back through past memories of identical threads, I have to admit to losing a slight chuckle at some of the age old arguments.
> ...



yes well, the problem with your second theory is that as far as photography is concerned, noone else is actually aware of how much or how little you processed that image. as far as art is concerned, if someone likes your photo, they buy it. there is no interview process where you explain to them exactly how much processing work you did to achieve it to which the customer bases their purchasing decision on. they simply look at the final image and decide whether they like it or not. art galleries do not list the process when they display a piece. they simply put the final product out there and let it be judged for what it is, not how it came to be.
if you see a picture hanging on the wall, lets say something done recently,  you have no idea if that was printed from a digital file or from a film negative. if you really like that picture, is it because of how you envisioned it was made, or simply because of what it is? would you suddenly value it less if you _*thought *_it was taken on film but found out it was digital?

my point was never to devalue the process of the end result. my point was that when someone looks at your portfolio, they are not privy to any of your workflow. they can only see what you have produced in its final form.
this is partly why we only show finished products to clients, because people care more about what IS, not about what WAS.  If you take a series of pictures for a client, would you charge more for pictures you had to edit more to get right and less for pictures that were closer to done right in camera? If not, then you are taking away the intrinsic value of the processing by itself, and putting the value on the finished product. while we base our prices accounting for basic processing times, we do not put a dollar amount on actual processing time per image, or even per job.


----------



## pixmedic (Nov 24, 2014)

bribrius said:


> imagemaker46 said:
> 
> 
> > They are all digital images.  I agree getting it right in camera is still something that people should strive for, but in the majority of cases that just isn't going to happen for most.  I usually make a few minor adjustments, crop where I have to, lighten/darken and subtle colour tweaks where required, but not often.  That's it, basically the same things I would do if I was printing from film.  It's still a digital image and end result is still going to be a digital image.
> ...



ya know, you can do pretty much the same thing with a film negative. print as many pictures as you want, each with different editing. digital photography didnt invent mass printing. it might have made it more mainstream, but it sure didnt invent it.


----------



## bribrius (Nov 24, 2014)

pixmedic said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > imagemaker46 said:
> ...


no. you are correct. I do think that with any art that gets into the upper prices how it was derived does drastically gain importance as well as who the artist was. I am far from a fine collector out of my price range, but at a certain level I think it all has significance. And how it came into being has a lot to do with who the potential buyer is as the artist and work becomes part of a certain element.  would that make a difference between advertising if you shot it jpeg or raw? Probably not but might if put hand in hand with the artists reputation as geared toward a certain buying clientele maybe? or I could just be wrong. lol.


----------



## Ysarex (Nov 24, 2014)

bribrius said:


> For me it does matter how that final image is made. Don't really so much care what others do but on a personal level it really matters and I will tell you why.
> 
> I separate photography from digital imaging. while this is very difficult to do with the advent of digital cameras I believe there is still a difference.



The problem you've got to deal with there is that all photographs no matter film, digital, glass plate, polaroid, negative, slide, print, whatever are manipulated images. Lenses manipulate the image before it's even recorded. So you've got no point where a black/white line exists and crossing it you have one versus the other. All you have is a range or gradient of manipulated images that starts with grey on one end and progresses darker. There's no white end to that gradient. Now you have to select a point to draw your line. What criteria justifies where you draw that line?

When you say you want to separate out a photograph versus a digital image I assume you want to say the photograph is a more faithful representation of reality and that matters to you. But no matter how you produce that photo it is a manipulated representation.

You use a digital camera. So do I. Consider this then: I also strive to make my photos be very faithful representations of the reality that I photograph. That's one important reason I typically shoot and process raw files. The heavy, crude and inaccurate editing applied by the camera software when it processes a JPEG is usually way too far a departure from reality for me and I want a more faithful representation of what I photographed. To get that I discard the automated camera processing that makes all kinds of inaccurate assumptions about what I photographed and then applies it's best crude guess to mangle the result.

You're using a digital camera. You don't think that all the processing algorithms engineered into that camera were created individually for every image you may in the future want to take and were created to produce a "faithful" rendition? Canon camera's even have a picture setting they call "faithful" -- now there's a good laugh.

Joe


----------



## bribrius (Nov 24, 2014)

a reach, but something to think about.

"Scarcity also matters; a print which has several identical copies fetches less than a unique painting. Intrinsic value and labor also can matter, the size of the painting and material used often influence price. Being sold through a gallery, especially a high profile one, increases value."

High-end art is one of the most manipulated markets in the world  &#8211;  Quartz

"Many people believed that mechanical reproductions would be the death of art.  In fact, the opposite has occurred.  The hand-produced image is more valuable because of its scarcity alone."

When is a Print really an art Print and when is it not? | eBay

Not sure how this would apply to photography, but there does seem to be a connection with perceived value and mechanical aspects of how the piece was derived.

just something to ponder, I still am not quite sure?


----------



## imagemaker46 (Nov 24, 2014)

Some of the most expensive pieces of art are crap, but because the artist has a reputation usually generated by someone who has promoted them, the crap is worth more.  How the piece of art was created in many cases is not important, only that it has been priced that way.

I was in a gallery and looked a piece of "art" It was the front page of a newspaper, blown up to well over 6 feet, and the artist had splashed paint all over it,  it looked like junk. The  thing was that the photo on the page was shot by a friend of mine, with the photo credit under it. I asked the curator of the gallery if the artist had the rights to deface and us the photo as it wasn't his to use.  His answer was a simple, I doubt it.  

What appeals to many doesn't appeal to everyone.  All a person needs to do is, act a little mysterious, wear dark clothes, be anti-social a little weird and find someone that can promote them.  Success.


----------



## photoguy99 (Nov 24, 2014)

That is a somewhat simplified description of what is required to be successful as an artist. Let's say that certain important details have been elided and leave it thus.


----------



## bribrius (Nov 24, 2014)

Ysarex said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > For me it does matter how that final image is made. Don't really so much care what others do but on a personal level it really matters and I will tell you why.
> ...


That line is already drawn. Their are numerous restrictions on post processing depending on use of photo, so it is drawn in many different formats by many different organizations. They don't have a problem coming up with lines. so the idea that they are all altered really doesn't fly as more than one has come up with criteria to separate just the amount of altering from other amounts of altering.  I was speaking also to the valuation of work as conceived through its process of coming into being as well. Posted a couple links I thought that could somewhat given perception of that but really would have to do more research and give it some thought. course the value as perceived is always up to the intended use of it and final user of it.
Excellent point on realism, there is realism in the photograph itself and realism as in how well it portrays the seen accurately I suppose. And of course surrealism or others that are more artistic. You can make a more accurate accounting with photoshop adjustments in many cases than shooting jpeg.


----------



## Buckster (Nov 24, 2014)

imagemaker46 said:


> All a person needs to do is, act a little mysterious, wear dark clothes, be anti-social a little weird and find someone that can promote them.  Success.


LOL!  Reminds me of this:


----------



## WayneF (Nov 24, 2014)

imagemaker46 said:


> They are all digital images.  I agree getting it right in camera is still something that people should strive for, but in the majority of cases that just isn't going to happen for most.  I usually make a few minor adjustments, crop where I have to, lighten/darken and subtle colour tweaks where required, but not often.  *That's it, basically the same things I would do if I was printing from film*.  It's still a digital image and end result is still going to be a digital image.



Bingo.  With film, we had to do the darkroom work, and we understood how to fix the exposure and contrast, etc.  It was just part of the process. It rarely came out perfect.  That was black&white.  Or (most of us), we could send color to the drugstore, and the guy at the drugstore corrected the  white balance and exposure for us (he wanted to sell the print).  So we shot negative color film in incandescent, or daylight, or  we might use a blue flash bulb, or not... whatever...  most of us then did not even understand the difference, never heard of white balance then. The guy at the drugstore fixed it for us. Analog had much more range than digital (digital clips at 255, analog light does not).

But with Digital, there is no guy now.  The shop just feeds the JPG file to a print machine now.  So *we are that guy now*, if we want any corrections to be made.  It is good to know how and be able to fix this. Raw makes that be easy, fast, and good.


----------



## photoguy99 (Nov 24, 2014)

What? The machine can and does color correct like crazy. This is in fact the biggest single problem with cheap machine prints from JPEGs, they'll botch the heck out of your color, and if the place is cheap there's no "leave my damn color alone" button.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Nov 24, 2014)

WayneF said:


> imagemaker46 said:
> 
> 
> > They are all digital images.  I agree getting it right in camera is still something that people should strive for, but in the majority of cases that just isn't going to happen for most.  I usually make a few minor adjustments, crop where I have to, lighten/darken and subtle colour tweaks where required, but not often.  *That's it, basically the same things I would do if I was printing from film*.  It's still a digital image and end result is still going to be a digital image.
> ...



I grew up processing and printing black and white film, slide film and colour negs, I printed them all as well, so I was that guy. I don't send anything out to get my images printed, i do all the work myself, so I'm still that guy.  Working from jpegs is also easy, fast and good.  I've never had any concerns with the quality or the final product.  It doesn't make any difference to me or my clients what the starting point was, all I care about is the end point.  If I look at one of my images on a 60' wall mural and the client is thrilled with it, does it matter that it was a jpeg.  Nope.


----------



## FArrival (Nov 24, 2014)

If you plan on spending a lot of time editing pictures for a desired effect shoot RAW. Otherwise stick to JPEG, which you can still post process quite a bit.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 24, 2014)

I shot thousands and thousands of images on color slide film, both Kodachrome, and Ektachrome, a bit of Agfachrome in the early 1980's. The images I shot were exposed as they were. I shot for in-camera perfection. For the most part processing was "100%. Correct. By the book." Everything developed to "factory specifications". There were tens of millions of slide shooters who worked this way from the 1940's, through the 1950's, 60's 70's,80's,90's, and beyond. The vast MAJORITY of serious non-wedding work was shot on color reversal film--AKA color slide film AKA color transparency. The idea that there was ,"Always manipulation of the film original," is utter bullshit. No, there was a HUGE, world-wide population of serious amateurs, working professionals, and even hobby shooters who worked at creating the EXACT image they wanted to capture, frozen in time, in an emulsion, on a single, unique piece of film. That is the central difference between *photography* with analog systems, and *digital imaging*: in analog photography, the goal is to create "an image" that is permanently recorded in a physical, finite, tangible form, captured in a light-sensitive emulsion. There is "an original" image, one that can be accessed and seen by the human being, without the need for a computer to decode binary code and create an arrangement of pixels that form an image once a computer, and computer display are brought to bear on "the file".

I am always surprised to hear otherwise experienced photographers from the past spewing B.S. so freely, and so willfully ignoring over sixty years' worth of how the majority of "serious photography" was actually undertaken when done on color slide film, and how almost all images were printed mostly "straight". A ton of revisionist B.S. is being  spewed in the rabid defense of this new 2010's idea that, "RAW is the holy grail" argument, as seen on the internet. Amazing.

Apparently, the most critical thing is not taking photographs, or making good photos, or finding good subject matter, but simply that ALL images need to be shot in raw mode. Do I about have that right? I think so.


----------



## bribrius (Nov 24, 2014)

I have a question. these formulas they put into cameras for in camera processing to sooc jpeg. Are these formulas based on the pre existing notion of "straight" photography? Kind of like the iso is related to film iso and the darkroom often attributed to post processing?
we hear lots of talk of in camera processing formulas. And I wonder how they come up with them, and what standard they use to come up with them. Maybe they are established in the manner of the straight photography meme? Like, "hey film is gone, but if you were to do straight photography this in camera processing and adjustments are the closest thing we can come up with in our formulas to mimic it"

clearly none of it is the same, but seems all digital is a attempt of replication of film photography aspects in a digital means. so the jpeg image i would wonder must replicate something. Maybe even just 35 mm straight with drug store processing. something.


----------



## bribrius (Nov 24, 2014)

'There is No Formula': Cinematographer Gordon Willis on Testing the Limits of His Craft
what is even more interesting is they have similar debates in film. Read through the comments on this article. The colorist would be the one dragging the image into pp in raw perhaps. The cinematographer the one picking out the pov and lens. The director the one with the vision deciding how he wants it shot.
Maybe some in digital photography are just closer to a cinematographer, some closer to being the director, some closest to the colorists. Some doing it all but concentrating attentions or better at a certain aspect of the show.
As technology increased, notice the debate increases on if the colorist is becoming more and more important, and the director and cinematographer less so.
fascinating. like photography but on that next level.
They even compare the importance of the colorists effects vs. the importance of the vision of the director.

The movie processing has gone so far ahead now some of the movies i have seen lately are down right amazing from the processing aspect. Course, we all complain they cant come up with a original idea at the same time and keep repeating the same plots. lol

what is somewhat in the obscure, is the occasion blair witch project or movie that is purposely filmed with flaws and errors in lower quality, giving a greater degree of authenticity and realism to the audience and gaining artistic effects manually rather than through the colorist. Really brings you there. But then the next technological genius in animation comes out in the theatre and you are like "oh wow! this is sooo cool!"
or throw on the 3d glasses and give it a whirl..
lol


----------



## Ysarex (Nov 24, 2014)

bribrius said:


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



Exactly my point. You just contradicted yourself. First you said, "that line is already drawn." You used line and the article "that" as singular. Then you went ahead and noted many different organizations which suggests many different lines. Dozens of wiggling lines in different places isn't a line. The best you can do for example in journalism is draw the line that content shouldn't be removed or added to the photo except for cropping (which can be a heavy-handed manipulation). Does that same line hold for advertising photos? How about fashion photos? There's no line if there's lots of different lines. And the lines that are drawn remain arbitrarily drawn. On one side of the line you don't get no manipulation versus manipulation. What you get is acceptable manipulation versus unacceptable manipulation. All photos are manipulations of reality in many different ways. You're just making your choice and maybe agreeing with one group or another. Other groups will draw the line differently.

For example is your goal to make sure that a photo you show to me is seen by me as faithfully as possible compared with how you saw the subject? That would seem an appropriate goal of someone who doesn't want images manipulated. Do you then refrain from using wide angle and telephoto lenses so as to not manipulate perspective when the images are viewed? How would you calculate the focal length to use so that a viewer would experience the perspective as you saw it taking the photo? Using a wide angle lens is a manipulation, but that manipulation is acceptable right? -- why does that get put on one side of "the line?" I've known photographers who have obsessed over this issue of the viewer seeing the scene in the same perspective as they saw it when the photo was taken. They use only one lens focal length and make sure you view their prints from a fixed distance by stringing a line in the gallery where you're supposed to stand. Their position is extreme but they're drawing their line and can't stand the kind of heavy manipulation that you employ by using a zoom lens. For example you posted a heavily manipulated photo of a seagull last week. That kind of editing would drive them nuts. (In the same way that your color editing in that photo drives me nuts) 

Joe


----------



## bribrius (Nov 24, 2014)

Ysarex said:


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


it is hard to faithfully replicate a scene, as it was exactly. I have tried.  For me, it seems near impossible. It is much easier to drag a seagull into post process and post process the hell of it in some artistic way than make that image identical to what was there. Kind of like i can come up with a abstract a lot easier than photographing a street exactly as it was. Notice i am saying "as it was" vs. "as i saw it". Because the first element is removing yourself from it.  How you saw it doesn't matter. what was there does. I have not attained realism in my photos, by and large. It seems perhaps the hardest thing to do. short of maybe shutter speed or depth. Still don't cut it. And lens, yes, i would have to have a much higher end lens as it all starts out at perfect vision it is your eye that misinterprets it. Making them less real, now that is easier.. The lens. yes the lens...!!! How do we fix that? Have yet to get the colors exact too.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Nov 24, 2014)

Shooting film, especially transparencies, was a get it right or don't get it at all. Different light, different film.  I blew a bunch of exposures even after shooting for years.  Getting the right exposures on kodachrome shooting in bright sun on a ski hill using a spot meter. Always a challenge, but that was all we knew, so we worked at it.  Thinking back now, it's a much easier way of shooting now.  The challenge to come up with great images is still the same.  

If I ended up with an exposure on film that looked the same as what I was shooting, that was perfect.  I don't know how the digital systems are calibrated, I've said before, I'm not technical, analogue.  If the digital image I'm looking at on my computer screen is what I was shooting, that's all I care about. I don't care how the inner workings of the camera got me to that point.  As far as I'm concerned, film/digital, doesn't matter, it's all about light and the image I want.  I just take pictures.


----------



## Ysarex (Nov 24, 2014)

bribrius said:


> I have a question. these formulas they put into cameras for in camera processing to sooc jpeg. Are these formulas based on the pre existing notion of "straight" photography?



No. They're based on the pre-existing principle of make the largest number of consumers happy with the result. I am not joking.



bribrius said:


> Kind of like the iso is related to film iso and the darkroom often attributed to post processing?
> we hear lots of talk of in camera processing formulas. And I wonder how they come up with them, and what standard they use to come up with them. Maybe they are established in the manner of the straight photography meme? Like, "hey film is gone, but if you were to do straight photography this in camera processing and adjustments are the closest thing we can come up with in our formulas to mimic it"
> 
> clearly none of it is the same, but seems all digital is a attempt of replication of film photography aspects in a digital means. so the jpeg image i would wonder must replicate something. Maybe even just 35 mm straight with drug store processing. something.



As the cameras get more sophisticated and more expensive the JPEG processing engines are offering the user more in-camera options but all of those options come with a spin. A specific example: Last year I bought a Fuji X-E2 which I'm very happy with. That camera was proceeded by the Fuji X-Pro and X-E1. The X-Pro had already developed a following of sorts and was pretty successful given it wasn't a Nikon or Canon. When Fuji released my camera the X-E2 they also released a new JPEG processing engine (Fuji's EXR-2 processor). The angst and uproar in the Fuji user world was deafening -- they squealed like stuck pigs. Fuji changed their beloved JPEG processing from the X-Pro camera version. And so if they bought the X-E2 there was no way they could have that processing back. Since then Fuji released the X-T1 and didn't fix it for them -- betrayal!

Let's stick with Fuji here since you asked if there's an attempt to replicate film. Fuji is short for Fujifilm. They were in this business long before digital primarily as a film manufacturer. Fuji cameras then come with JPEG processing options to emulate Fuji's better know films. The standard JPEG processing in a Fuji camera is Provia but there are also JPEG options for Astia, Velvia and neg stocks. Now it's worth noting again that when the EXR-2 processor came out all those films changed ;-)

Another digital twist: Film's analog response was chemically predictable. When we loaded a role of Kodachrome into a camera what that film was going to do was a clean and clear function of light exposure and chemistry. As such the results were pretty predictable. Computer algorithms on the other hand have this structure: if(){}else(){}elseif(){}else(){} etc. In other words they try and branch to different results based on earlier evaluations and then again and again. That's a very different process and as such will always bear the mark of the programmer. In other words; based on elseif() you did what?!! Seriously??!! Are you an idiot? There will always be an engineering team back at Nikon or Canon tinkering with those algorithms and always a marketing executive looking over their shoulders (that would be the idiot referenced above).

Joe


----------



## runnah (Nov 24, 2014)

Scott summed it up nicely in the last couple lines.

If people spent more time worrying about getting a compelling image rather than about their equipment the world would be a better place.


----------



## Ysarex (Nov 24, 2014)

runnah said:


> Scott summed it up nicely in the last couple lines.
> 
> If people spent more time worrying about getting a compelling image rather than about their equipment the world would be a better place.



There you go! Very well thought out except that you forgot to tell everyone how to do that. I'll help:


----------



## runnah (Nov 24, 2014)

Ysarex said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > Scott summed it up nicely in the last couple lines.
> ...



I'd rather people use that mode and focus on the shots they take.


----------



## bribrius (Nov 24, 2014)

runnah said:


> Scott summed it up nicely in the last couple lines.
> 
> If people spent more time worrying about getting a compelling image rather than about their equipment the world would be a better place.


hey. Some of us don't know it all and have some empty spaces on the shelves to fill in.


----------



## Ysarex (Nov 24, 2014)

runnah said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > runnah said:
> ...



This may be a really over-the-top idea, but do you think people could learn how to use their cameras and also focus on the shots they take? Is there any chance those two things could work together? Naw, what am I thinking -- I was born back in the day when there were photographers. That won't work today; modern cameras are just too hard for fauxtographers to really understand. I mean they're designed so you don't really have to know how they work. That's hard. So I have a better idea! Don't worry, Be happy!


----------



## runnah (Nov 24, 2014)

You come off as a bit of an elitist. 

Want to come round and yell at my kid for not using proper shading techniques when he is finger painting?

My point is that when I see a great photo I done care what camera, lens or file format they used. People are so obsessed with the technical aspects that they have forgotten the point.


----------



## Ysarex (Nov 24, 2014)

runnah said:


> You come off as a bit of an elitist.
> 
> Want to come round and yell at my kid for not using proper shading techniques when he is finger painting?
> 
> My point is that when I see a great photo I done care what camera, lens or file format they used. People are so obsessed with the technical aspects that they have forgotten the point.



He's not painting outside the lines is he?!!

And you come off as having jumped in with a vacuous cheap shot -- Oh sh*t! I must be elitist; I just used "vacuous" in a forum post.

Of course it's about the photos. So you're not seriously going to advocate just put the camera on green and everybody concentrate on getting great shots. We both know better than that. Understanding and practice and competence don't really get in the way of taking better photos -- they help. You can swing overboard on anything and swings go both ways. So you're going to claim now that switching a camera to save raw files is going tech overboard? No? Oh but switching to save raw and then wanting to understand just how that works -- that's tech overboard?

I know this is an old dead horse topic that can get irritating, but that's one of the things forums like this are for -- there's always new people who have legit questions. I also tried to stay out of it. You'll note if you look back through that when I did join in it was to defend the JPEG shooting journalists. I wasn't willing to let the "good enough" description be applied to their work. Sorry for the sarcasm.

Joe


----------



## runnah (Nov 24, 2014)

My point is that topics like this are such an exercise in futility that it does more harm than good.

Rather than filling the heads of people who don't understand with biased opinions in lieu of facts we should inform of those facts and let them decide for themselves.


----------



## Gary A. (Nov 24, 2014)

Technical and Creativity/Vision works hand-in-hand. Content is King. While timing and composition are critically important ... understanding how to manipulate the camera to best capture and even enhance the content is nearly as important as content.

There aren't any shortcuts or quick fixes for photogs to consistently capture the exceptional image. One needs both the creative and technical for photographic proficiency. Neglecting one for the other will significantly harm the final image. Talking tech is easy ... talking creative is hard.


----------



## runnah (Nov 24, 2014)

Gary A. said:


> Technical and Creativity/Vision works hand-in-hand. Content is King. While timing and composition are critically important ... understanding how to manipulate the camera to best capture and even enhance the content is nearly as important as content.
> 
> There aren't any shortcuts or quick fixes for photogs to consistently capture the exceptional image. One needs both the creative and technical for photographic proficiency. Neglecting one for the other will significantly harm the final image. Talking tech is easy ... talking creative is hard.




you are right. Tech is easy because it has hard facts to back it up. You can bust out your slide rule and prove why x is better than why.

For example:

Raw vs. JPEG

Pros of raw.
More information per image file
More latitude during editing

Cons of raw
Large file size
Slower frame rate and more buffering

Pros of JPEG:
Faster frame rate and buffering
Smaller file sizes

Cons of JPEG
Lower image quality (compared to raw)
In camera processing
Less latitude during editing.

Boom done. Simple as that. Now it's time to make an educated decision based on your circumstances.

Declaring you only do this or that is asinine and only hurts you creativity.


----------



## photoguy99 (Nov 24, 2014)

I can also beat you with my slide rule. So, bonus.


----------



## runnah (Nov 24, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> I can also beat you with my slide rule. So, bonus.



Thanks for adding that very useful contribution.


----------



## photoguy99 (Nov 24, 2014)

Oh come now. You love it. Plus, I'm on your side.

Joe is totally wrong. Getting sidetracked by technical detail has been the ruin of many a photographer. Photography is awash in trivialities you can fuss with.

You can piss away years fine tuning your digital workflow or screwing around with developers or trying to find just the right plastic camera and expired film.

There are literally millions of people who are tinkering with this crap, hoping that if they just get the right mix their inner Ansel Adams, Cartier-Bresson or that one other guy they can't remember his name will be unleashed.

And as long as they feel validated arguing about RAW versus JPEG their inner that-one-guy-whats-his-name is going to stay inner.

Some of them just like technical fussing. But some of them, surely, could be pretty good off they just got their asses kicked a bit.


----------



## Village Idiot (Nov 25, 2014)

imagemaker46 said:


> I use auto WB all the time, and I have very few issues with it under most light conditions, indoors or out. Where the light is not ideal, it is generally takes seconds to fix in photoshop. I work with other photographers shooting the same events and they stress over the settings, are constantly making changes and when I tell them I haven't made any changes they look confused.  What ends up happening with some of these guys is that they make so many custom changes that they end up having to go back to the defaults and start over when the light changes.
> 
> I shot a hockey game last week, no changes at all and then I looked at images shot by another photographer and they were all yellow, i already knew the light in this arena was a little cyan, but that is a quick fix.  I think that some people overthink everything they do, and in the end screw up.  I keep it simple and concentrate more on what I'm seeing.



The problem is that auto WB gets worse and worse the farther you go back in camera generations. Also, AWB on most cameras up to a point (which may still be true, I’m not really up on new cameras) only shoots is a certain range, so if your WB is outside of that range, it won’t compensate for it.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Nov 25, 2014)

Village Idiot said:


> imagemaker46 said:
> 
> 
> > I use auto WB all the time, and I have very few issues with it under most light conditions, indoors or out. Where the light is not ideal, it is generally takes seconds to fix in photoshop. I work with other photographers shooting the same events and they stress over the settings, are constantly making changes and when I tell them I haven't made any changes they look confused.  What ends up happening with some of these guys is that they make so many custom changes that they end up having to go back to the defaults and start over when the light changes.
> ...



Like all technology it is constantly improving, but at some point I assume the improvements simply become so minor that they really are just an addition to the specs, but don't make any difference.  Having gone through the first generation Canon 1D and now using the 1Dx I know there is a huge difference in the technology, but have I noticed a huge difference in the images I'm producing.  The biggest difference is the file size and the ability to crop using an 18mp 1Dx file as opposed to a 3.8mp file from the 1D.  It leaves me with a huge file to work with. It's also has a much higher frame speed. I can also assume that the AWB is much better, but I haven't noticed huge changes in my images.

For all the changes that have gone on, if I look at the specs from 14 years ago with the 1D and the specs now, I can see that the numbers are higher or lower.  Not being into the technical side of how and why, the numbers mean very little to me.  I can stand with someone and show them what I'm shooting, or what I am seeing, and explain why I'm shooting it the way I am.  It is more difficult to tell someone how to take a picture based on the camera specs.   I know there are lots of people that read through the magazines and love to talk specs, not just cameras, but cars, planes, knives, doesn't matter. It's the way people with more technical minds like to look at things.  There is nothing wrong with that. 

The bottom line is that I learned how to see the content, read the light, compose an image, and shoot it, all without knowing any of the technical information, rules of thirds, and whatever else I'm told I should know.

Could I improve my images knowing the all the specs, I doubt it, photography goes beyond the specs.


----------



## bribrius (Nov 25, 2014)

runnah said:


> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> > Technical and Creativity/Vision works hand-in-hand. Content is King. While timing and composition are critically important ... understanding how to manipulate the camera to best capture and even enhance the content is nearly as important as content.
> ...


this is extremely shortsighted, because it depends on the school of thought you come from and what exactly you intend to learn. Now i am sure not everyone has a dying need to learn the history of a jpeg image and artifacts, but knowing so gives a much better understanding to exactly what we are doing out there.
instance, my daughter started tae kwon do she was asked to memorize the school motto. That's it. When i started fma i was handed papers to read and learn on the HISTORY of fma. Before we even stepped out on the matt. Different methods, different school of thought. If you limit scope or "crop the photo" and only show them a small portion with no understanding..thats it. That little bit is all someone knows.


photoguy99 said:


> Oh come now. You love it. Plus, I'm on your side.
> 
> Joe is totally wrong. Getting sidetracked by technical detail has been the ruin of many a photographer. Photography is awash in trivialities you can fuss with.
> 
> ...


do you have to know how to change a tire to drive a car? no. But you never know when the information may come in handy. It also gives you a better perspective what you are actually engaging in knowing at least a working knowledge of the tool being used.


----------



## runnah (Nov 25, 2014)

bribrius said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > Gary A. said:
> ...




How so?

The good thing about the technical aspects about photography is that there is a firm truth in the facts. It's proven using facts that ISO 800 is more light sensitive than ISO 400. The flip side is the creative aspect of photography that cannot be qualified with numbers and facts.

Bogging down the technical aspects of photography with nonsense opinions and bias only hurts people's ability to learn.


----------



## Gary A. (Nov 25, 2014)

In an all-else-is-equal sense ... shooting RAW only is okay, as long as you know the benefits of shoot JPEG and have selected to shoot RAW. Conversely, shooting JPEG is okay, again, as long as you know the benefits of shooting RAW and have chosen not to do so.

But shooting RAW just because you heard it was better, or shooting JPEG just because you don't know how to process RAW, is limiting and will put you down a narrow path of growth and  fewer options.

Same for camera settings, using auto modes is fine, as long as you understand manual and understand what the camera is doing for you in auto mode. yadda-yadda-yadda

My point is that it is fine to set the camera in auto and work on composition as long as you know that someday you'll have to shift out of auto mode and work on exposure, if you desire more than just snapshots and the occasional and inconsistent exceptional image. And similarly for exposure. If all you're after are snapshots, then auto everything, shoot SOOC ... and why are you here on this forum.

Gary


----------



## photoguy99 (Nov 25, 2014)

I think it's a mistake to separate technical aspects from artistic ones. It all flows together. The necessary technical details can be taught in hours, though, and so obsessing over them is a waste of time, unless of course the technical details are what you enjoy.

RAW versus JPEG is a minor nicety which is rarely applicable to artistic vision. Sometimes it is, though. Luckily it's also trivially easy, so when your ideas need it, there it is


----------



## pixmedic (Nov 25, 2014)

Dang....y'all still going on about raw vs jpeg? Can't we move on to a more civilized discussion? Like why Nikon is better than Canon?


----------



## snerd (Nov 25, 2014)

pixmedic said:


> Dang....y'all still going on about raw vs jpeg? Can't we move on to a more civilized discussion? Like why Nikon is better than Canon?


I'm in!! I was soooooooooo tempted by the D810!! Only my lenses held me back!!


----------



## Ysarex (Nov 25, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> I think it's a mistake to separate technical aspects from artistic ones. It all flows together. The necessary technical details can be taught in hours, though, and so obsessing over them is a waste of time, unless of course the technical details are what you enjoy.
> 
> RAW versus JPEG is a minor nicety which is rarely applicable to artistic vision. Sometimes it is, though. Luckily it's also trivially easy, so when your ideas need it, there it is



That one's for agreeing with me now after saying I was totally wrong.

These are for "taught in hours" and "trivially easy." You, and we, know better.

Joe


----------



## photoguy99 (Nov 25, 2014)

You've said a lot of stuff, Joe, only some of it is wrong, to be fair  I agree with all the stuff that's right, of course!

And I stand by "taught in hours" and "trivially easy". Of course the rabbit hole goes down forever. Having spent about 20 years exploring it, I am confident in that assertion.

But:

You can be taught a toolbox suitable for a broad range of expression in a few hours, if the teaching is organized well. The people who are good at the "let's give some inner city/poor rural/whatever kids some cameras and see what happens" game have demonstrated this repeatedly.

You can be taught what RAW is good for in a few minutes, and taught, again, a useful toolbox in a few more minutes. Perhaps an hour.

But, sure, the rabbit hole goes down forever, if you want to think of it that way.


----------



## Ysarex (Nov 25, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> You've said a lot of stuff, Joe, only some of it is wrong, to be fair  .....



Oh, please be specific -- I'd love to correct my errors.

Joe


----------



## photoguy99 (Nov 25, 2014)

I was specific. Post #112.


----------



## Ysarex (Nov 25, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> I was specific. Post #112.



You don't quote a single thing I said in that post. "Specific" you can google it. Show me where I said the things you're making exaggerations about. Quote me.

You do it like this. You said: "The necessary technical details can be taught in hours, though, and so obsessing over them is a waste of time, unless of course the technical details are what you enjoy.

RAW versus JPEG is a minor nicety which is rarely applicable to artistic vision. Sometimes it is, though. Luckily it's also trivially easy, so when your ideas need it, there it is"

And that is complete rubbish. I've spent the last 30 years teaching photography to college students -- both undergraduate and graduate. They study for years to learn. Too bad they didn't talk to you first, they could have saved a lot of time and money. So 30 years and thousands of students later I've gotten pretty good at it but I haven't been able to whittle it down yet to a couple of hours.

Here's one of the textbooks we use in our Photo I class: Photography (10th Edition): Barbara London, John Upton, Jim Stone: 9780205711499: Amazon.com: Books

You need to get a hold of Barbara, John and Jim and tell them it doesn't take 3 people and 416 pages for just a Photo I text. A couple of hours -- they should be able to fit it into 50 pages easy with room for illustrations.

Oh, and the Pros who hang out here at TPF what they do is really just "trivially easy" and can be learned in hours -- can't imagine why they'd even want to refer to themselves as professional photographers since a Sunday afternoon is all that's really needed to learn to do what they do.

Joe


----------



## photoguy99 (Nov 25, 2014)

No, Joe.

This is not a thesis defense. This is an internet forum. If you cannot follow my argument, then that's a shame, but I don't care. I'm not here to count coup and win arguments on the internet. I'm here to learn stuff and from time to time to offer information.

And, since the rabbit hole goes down forever, if you're given a semester or three years or 50 years to fill, of course you can and you do. If you have two days, or an afternoon, you can get it done in that time as well. It's not very complicated stuff.


----------



## photoguy99 (Nov 25, 2014)

Also perhaps worth noting. You quote me, and then blunder off the rails immediately:

"The necessary technical details can be taught in hours"

you seem to interpret as:

"everything there is to know about photography can be taught in hours"

which isn't what it says at all. But, again, you're here to win arguments, and I am not, so I should just step away now and let you.. win. However you plan to do that.


----------



## snerd (Nov 25, 2014)

Ysarex said:


> .......... Here's one of the textbooks we use in our Photo I class: Photography (10th Edition): Barbara London, John Upton, Jim Stone: 9780205711499: Amazon.com: Books......


Damn that thing is expensive!!


----------



## bribrius (Nov 25, 2014)

snerd said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > .......... Here's one of the textbooks we use in our Photo I class: Photography (10th Edition): Barbara London, John Upton, Jim Stone: 9780205711499: Amazon.com: Books......
> ...


why do you think i try to learn online for free. And we have these photography instructors on here that will explain things to us for no cost at all while everyone else is paying course and book fees.


----------



## DanOstergren (Nov 26, 2014)

This last weekend I accidentally did an entire shoot in JPEG. Fortunately the images are for a clothing brand that only wanted to use them for posting on the internet and not for print, and I made sure by habit to get the exposure/lighting/whitebalance right at the moment of exposure, but my heart sank hard when I got home to put them on my computer and realized there were no RAW images. I'm now dealing with banding in some of the images which is making editing take a bit longer. Lesson learned; I will ALWAYS check to make sure the camera is in the right setting. This time we rented a camera and I forgot to check. Never again...


----------



## bribrius (Nov 26, 2014)

DanOstergren said:


> This last weekend I accidentally did an entire shoot in JPEG. Fortunately the images are for a clothing brand that only wanted to use them for posting on the internet and not for print, and I made sure by habit to get the exposure/lighting/whitebalance right at the moment of exposure, but my heart sank hard when I got home to put them on my computer and realized there were no RAW images. I'm now dealing with banding in some of the images which is making editing take a bit longer. Lesson learned; I will ALWAYS check to make sure the camera is in the right setting. This time we rented a camera and I forgot to check. Never again...


yeah,  i hear ya. flipping back and forth i have forgotten. There are so many settings it seems near impossible to remember where you left them next time you shoot. suppose if you just leave everything the same or factory default or whatever it wouldn't be such a problem but those of us that do a lot of settings playing.....
picked up the camera last night and was kind of like "wtf is wrong with this thing" then remembered i left the focus in 3d tracking.   Looking through the images notice something is off. oh yeah, i had changed it to mid size on the jpegs. huh... switch to user preset and snap hdr, huh? oh yeah i had changed it to heavy hdr before i need to put that back... notice the iso is at 4k, forgot to reset that limit need to change that back. shot through twenty last week all underexposed because i didn't notice my exposure was -1 at first.
don't know how people every keep track.


----------



## Ysarex (Nov 26, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> Also perhaps worth noting. You quote me, and then blunder off the rails immediately:
> 
> "The necessary technical details can be taught in hours"
> 
> ...



And you throw out superlatives like "trivially easy", "taught in hours", "totally wrong" and "everything there is to know" and expect to not be challenged.

I know what you're saying. You can unbox the new Xmas camera and go through the manual with a little help in a couple of hours and start taking some respectable JPEGs of the kids that will look great to your FB friends. I also know that way too many of those people manage to catch a few "isn't she soooo cute" snapshots and a month later Precious Moments has a FB page open for business.

Sure, you can open a raw file in LR, press the auto button and wang a few sliders around till you like what you see and that was easy. It's not so easy to get excellence. It's OK for some people to want and expect the best.

No, I'm not talking about "everything there is to know" that again is a superlative. I'm talking about knowing enough to be able to control the process to an expected outcome. I do this for a living (well I did for 40 years) and I take it seriously. Sure it's not rocket science, but you really want to stick with trivially easy and not get called out? Maybe ease off on the superlatives.

You and I shouldn't be at odds over any of this. I never advocated obsessing over the tech in this thread. I advocated understanding how it works so you can control it and get the results you want. I believe you in fact endorse that. And again I'm sorry for the sarcastic tone I took with Runnah and for these:(don't know what to call them).

Joe


----------



## Gary A. (Nov 26, 2014)

The Exposure Comp is easy to adjust on Fuji's. It is an unlocked dial next to the shutter release on the the right edge of the camera. It took a while to learn not to accidently touch that dial. Fortunately, during my formative years in photography, I had to exposure by eye. My skill level in that department is seriously reduced by neglect, but when I was shooting regularly, the TTL meter was used more as a backup and/or fine tuning for my eye than my primary metering. The EVF on the Fuji's is so good that usually I can catch Exp/Comp under-over exposure if I accidentally hit it.


----------



## pixmedic (Nov 26, 2014)

Othello! 
I just got it. 
PS and LR are Othello!
(noone remembers the old 80's Othello commercials?)


----------



## Ysarex (Nov 26, 2014)

bribrius said:


> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> > This last weekend I accidentally did an entire shoot in JPEG. Fortunately the images are for a clothing brand that only wanted to use them for posting on the internet and not for print, and I made sure by habit to get the exposure/lighting/whitebalance right at the moment of exposure, but my heart sank hard when I got home to put them on my computer and realized there were no RAW images. I'm now dealing with banding in some of the images which is making editing take a bit longer. Lesson learned; I will ALWAYS check to make sure the camera is in the right setting. This time we rented a camera and I forgot to check. Never again...
> ...



Yep, that's the first thing I do in a class on the first day in the first hour. I make them all get paper and pen and we go over the settings in their cameras and we determine an appropriate set of defaults that we want the cameras set for. I make them write them down and then I tell them they must develop the habit of setting those defaults before they turn the camera OFF. It's OK to change them once they start working but it's absolutely critical that they set the camera back to "default" before they turn it off so it'll be there the next time they turn it on. We can refine the defaults as we learn more but the habit of setting "default" before turning OFF the camera is so important.

Joe


----------



## Ysarex (Nov 26, 2014)

Gary A. said:


> The Exposure Comp is easy to adjust on Fuji's. It is an unlocked dial next to the shutter release on the the right edge of the camera. It took a while to learn not to accidently touch that dial. Fortunately, during my formative years in photography, I had to exposure by eye. My skill level in that department is seriously reduced by neglect, but when I was shooting regularly, the TTL meter was used more as a backup and/or fine tuning for my eye than my primary metering. The EVF on the Fuji's is so good that usually I can catch Exp/Comp under-over exposure if I accidentally hit it.



I love that dial! Right where it belongs on my X-E2. I'd hate it if were locked, but yes you have to keep after it.

Joe


----------



## Gary A. (Nov 26, 2014)

Where do you teach? My oldest daughter is a Billiken. 

Gary

(PS- I absolutely love my Fuji cameras.)


----------



## photoguy99 (Nov 26, 2014)

That was handsomely said, Joe.

I disagree on particulars, but I apologize in turn for any and all of the several places in which I was offensive.


----------



## runnah (Nov 26, 2014)

All in favor of closing  this thread?


----------



## bribrius (Nov 26, 2014)

runnah said:


> All in favor of closing  this thread?


don't matter to me. I am starting to wonder if the snow and cold is making you grumpy....


----------



## snerd (Nov 26, 2014)

Ysarex said:


> ..... I know what you're saying. You can unbox the new Xmas camera and go through the manual with a little help in a couple of hours and start taking some respectable JPEGs of the kids that will look great to your FB friends. I also know that way too many of those people manage to catch a few "isn't she soooo cute" snapshots and a month later Precious Moments has a FB page open for business.........


This phenomenon  just cracks me up! I've seen it twice with relatives. Oooh's and ahh's and then a business page appears! The pics are snapshots, but who's gonna tell them?! I guess there is a market for it, or they retire quickly lol!!


----------



## photoguy99 (Nov 26, 2014)

It's the rash that's making runnah grumpy.


----------



## bribrius (Nov 26, 2014)

snerd said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > ..... I know what you're saying. You can unbox the new Xmas camera and go through the manual with a little help in a couple of hours and start taking some respectable JPEGs of the kids that will look great to your FB friends. I also know that way too many of those people manage to catch a few "isn't she soooo cute" snapshots and a month later Precious Moments has a FB page open for business.........
> ...


it is easier and higher quality now. Taking a photo on a consumer grade dslr in auto can get you better results than what you paid someone to do at sears twenty years ago. They aren't all crap photos, that is the thing. Many are better than what the pros were paid to do not that long ago. Ad in a nominal knowledge in post processing all these novices aren't all turning out crap images. You can turn out better photos with a phone camera than I was paying someone to take of my kids for school photos a decade ago.


----------



## bribrius (Nov 26, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> It's the rash that's making runnah grumpy.


we know what he really needs. But that is between him and his wife I wont go there...


----------



## Ysarex (Nov 26, 2014)

Gary A. said:


> Where do you teach? My oldest daughter is a Billiken.
> 
> Gary
> 
> (PS- I absolutely love my Fuji cameras.)



I'm retired 6 years now and I teach as a part-time faculty here and there and all over one semester to the next. This semester I'm teaching on two different campuses which are both part of the STLCC conglomerate -- Wildwood and Florissant Valley in Ferguson MO -- students are getting some exciting photos. I prefer to teach just one class per semester but I often end up with two -- too much work.

I did graduate work at SLU when I first came to town back in the 70s.

I'm also very happy with my X-E2. I downsized last year from a 5DmkII and have no regrets except the loss of the OVF which I've adjusted to. IQ is basically the same and the 14mm f/2.8 is one of the best lenses I've owned in a 40 year career.

Joe


----------

