# What is so bad about RAW?



## tecboy (Jul 8, 2013)

I don't have problem with people shooting jpeg.  However, this video claims jpeg is better than raw.

Why I REALLY Shoot Portraits in JPEG instead of RAW. - YouTube


----------



## Gavjenks (Jul 8, 2013)

Jpeg has exactly two objective, technical advantages: taking up less space in your card, and having slightly faster workflow since calculations are already done (how much faster depends on your habits, and could be anything from a negligible second or two per photo to a very significant 20 minutes per photo).  RAW has pretty much every other technical advantage.

So if you happen to have very limited card space (something that you discover in the field.  If you know this ahead of time, then you should probably just buy larger cards), then switching to jpeg only may be better.  Or if you find yourself unable to let go and use standard conversions, or if you feel compelled to always use the RAW when you get back home even when the jpeg is sufficient (OCD-ish people), then shooting more jpegs more often may help save you hours of compulsive editing.

But outside of those two specialized scenarios, it cannot hurt you to have a RAW.  Ideally shoot RAW+jpeg, so you can choose per photo whether you want or need to put in the extra editing effort, etc. for the best of both worlds.




You can of course make all kinds of whatever other psychological arguments about how it helps you "grow as a photographer" like the guy in that video is suggesting.  Yeah okay, whatever. If you find yourself at all convinced by what he says, then go ahead and shoot a portrait session with your friend with jpeg only, and see if anything he says you agree with or not. There is something to the idea of "creative constraints" (as anybody who has ever played minecraft knows, for instance!) But when it comes to psychological arguments like that, without actual experiments to back them up, it's all just armchair philosophy.  I could just as easily say the opposite, and there would be something to it as well!: By having options to alter stuff in RAW later could also arguably help you learn faster by letting you say "oh I should have done this" and instead of having to wait until later to see how it would turn out, you can do it now, and then know exactly what to expect next time with your default settings.



So...

It's probably not true for you or most people, and one could make opposite arguments just as easily.  *But "more creativity from a more constrained position" is indeed something that exists as a legitimate phenomenon in the psychological research literature* (for things other than photography so far). My day job is as a cognitive psychologist, and not only have I read papers that make such an argument, but there are professors in my own department who have done similar research since I've been here.

That doesn't mean it will be true for you in particular.  But it might be.  Give it a try if you're intrigued.


----------



## Big Mike (Jul 8, 2013)

> However, this video claims jpeg is better than raw.


Some people just like the sound of their own voice.  :roll:


----------



## amolitor (Jul 8, 2013)

That video claims that JPEG is better than RAW for very very very specific reasons. None of those reasons are technical, all of those reasons are psychological.

He's making, essentially, the argument that JPEG changes the way you work, in ways that he personally finds beneficial. People who use film, or large format, or medium format, or ambrotypes, make essentially the same claim. It's about psychology, and it's very individual. He urges you to try it, but I didn't read him as saying "You ought to work this way" but rather as "You should try this out, see if you like it, see if it helps you grow as a photographer"

It wouldn't help *me* grow as a photographer, because it pushes you to improve things about the way you work that I simply don't care about. Also, I have plenty of film gear around for those times when I want to make those kinds of psychological commitments.


----------



## tecboy (Jul 8, 2013)

This is interesting, really!


----------



## 480sparky (Jul 8, 2013)

tecboy said:


> This is interesting, really!



At least he admits that "Get it right in the camera" *&#8800; *"I don't need to do ANY post processing, I just want to do _as little as possible_".


----------



## amolitor (Jul 8, 2013)

It's sort of startling how little actual content there is in these videos. The second one has, I think, no actual content. It says actually nothing. Well, maybe he went so far as to say "sometimes, I shoot JPEG".

The first one says "Sometimes, I shoot JPEG, because I find the limitations freeing in some ways I am not going to define" which is enough content to actually fill in some details yourself.

There's a lot of chatter about getting it right in the camera, but not discussion of a) what that means or b) how one would do it.


----------



## Gavjenks (Jul 8, 2013)

> Sometimes, I shoot JPEG, because I find the limitations freeing in some ways I am not going to define


Again, this is an actual phenomenon that is fairly well established and measured. I'm not sure he is obligated to justify its existence from scratch as a video blogger, when this has already been done elsewhere.

*However*, although it is known to stimulate your creativity, it stimulates it in limited ways, analogous to the limits you placed on yourself technically in the first place. In other words, it's a good way to get yourself out of a rut or to find a style for yourself if you have none, etc., but it will never be as freeing as it is to be creatively inspired *AND *unconstrained at the same time.  Most of the research I've heard about on this has to do with "writer's block" not photography, so in those terms, constraints are great for getting you to stop staring at a blank page and actually start writing something.  But once you're writing at a good clip, you would usually do well to remove the constraints slowly, to avoid writing an overly formulaic or predictable book (even if your constraints are very odd, once the reader picks up on them, it becomes easier to predict the rest of your story).

So in photography, once you have found a style for yourself and have creative juices flowing and know what you want your end product to be, then you should begin shooting RAW + jpeg again. Because then you can just normally use the jpegs (faster and easier and most of the time you will have gotten what you wanted in camera), but the RAWs will allow you to get more keepers by salvaging technical errors and push the boudnaries a little further now and then.

I think the pitfall that the blogger is getting at is if/when you have little inspiration, and you are relying on RAW to let you create a look that you didn't envision during the shoot.  This will inevitably yield crappy results. And if so, you'd benefit from trying out jpeg only for awhile.  But if you use RAWs more correctly as a technical safety net or technical enhancement tool, not as a creative safety net, then you're probably fine as-is.


----------



## amolitor (Jul 8, 2013)

Well, sure, it's a real thing. I'm glad the psychologists are looking in to it, but honestly anyone who's ever made any serious attempt to be creative has felt the effect. I am not a psychologist, but I think it is about removing cognitive load, and a few other things perhaps.

The point is that he spends a 6 minute video providing a piece of content that takes 10 seconds to say, and several minutes talking about how great he is. So far these dudes are not exactly selling me on watching more of their videos.


----------



## Gavjenks (Jul 8, 2013)

> and several minutes talking about how great he is.


lol yes.


----------



## tecboy (Jul 8, 2013)

*Jared Polin* is the "*Man!"

*<font size="4"><strong>


----------



## Benco (Jul 8, 2013)

Darn it, I never realised that having good stuff and using it to it's limits was restricting my creativity so much, I see it now, I've been doing my art wrong all this time.... must bin all my fancy schminke and unison pastels and go out and buy a load of school crayons in order to 'free up my creativity'.

What a big steaming heap of B U L L S H I T.


----------



## tecboy (Jul 8, 2013)

I shoot raw files and export to jpeg and upload to website and my ipad.  Why these people are so adamant about jpeg better than raw?  This is false information.  If you want to shoot jpeg, then go ahead.  People have a choice, but don't insult photographers who are shooting raw.


----------



## Josh66 (Jul 8, 2013)

I shoot RAW+JPG because for snapshots, JPG is fine - for anything else I like having the RAW.  And I'm too lazy to switch it back and forth depending on how good I think the picture will be.

Also, I'm not one of those "fill three cards a day" types, so I'm not really worried about card capacity all that much.  I have only filled a card in a day once, and that was before I realized that I should buy some bigger cards.



I'm not saying that my way is better, just that it's 'my way'.


----------



## Gavjenks (Jul 8, 2013)

tecboy said:


> I shoot raw files and export to jpeg and upload to website and import to my ipad.  Why these people are so adamant about jpeg better than raw?  This is fault information.  If you want to shoot jpeg, then go ahead.  People have a choice, but don't insult photographers who are shooting raw.


You are aware that this post of yours is insulting people who shoot jpeg, yes (to suggest that it might be in any way is "faulty information")?  Why is that acceptable, but not the reverse? 

One might be better, or it might be an opinion thing, but it's especially odd to say "It's an opinion, so you shouldn't say jpeg is objectively better.  Also, by the way, RAW is objectively better."


----------



## dbvirago (Jul 8, 2013)

Shooting JPGs helped me grow as a photographer the day I shot landscapes all day set to tungsten WB. My personal journey of growth involved moving the little doo-hickey over to the RAW setting and never looking back.


----------



## Overread (Jul 8, 2013)

One way to get yourself noticed - say things that are outrageous and go against the common grain (Ken Rockwell built himself on doing this). 

Part of life itself is learning who is and isn't worth listening to; furthermore another key part is learning to separate opinion from fact - sadly both points are very hard to perform when new to a specific area of interest; its one reason that "just google it" doesn't work as an answer because often than not the popular answer is either wrong or highly opinionated to the point where its wrong as generalist advice. 

There are times when JPEG is superior and there are times when RAW is superior. Research the options, learn to use both to a good level of finish and then make your choice at the time for what works for you best.


----------



## tecboy (Jul 8, 2013)

I'm not insulting anyone.  I just don't like fact about giving wrong information about jpeg is better picture quality than unprocessed raw image.


----------



## Overread (Jul 8, 2013)

Ps many professional sports photographers shoot in JPEG - their profession allows for very little editing itself and the photos are needed almost as soon as they are taken by the editors (not just for the print in the paper, but these days also for online display). As such the photographer doesn't even have time to edit RAWs and won't gain much in their use - so they shoot JPEG. It speeds up the process and also means that file transfer sizes are small so that they can quickly send images right to the editor (its not unknown for some to shoot with a wireless transfer setup and an assistant on site who uploads the shots as they are taken).

So JPEG does have a place in the world, even in the professional world. It's an example of where most of the photographers shooting can use both approaches - they've learned what the strengths and weaknesses are for each and have made the choice to use from an informed position .


----------



## Gavjenks (Jul 8, 2013)

> I'm not insulting anyone. I just don't like fact about giving wrong information about jpeg is better picture quality than unprocessed raw image.


It's not objectively wrong.  If creative constraints like limiting yourself to jpeg do indeed jolt you out of a creative rut, then your images will have a higher image quality than otherwise, since you are more creatively stimulated to make tasteful artistic choices.  Also, an image that exists necessarily has higher image quality than an image that doesn't exist (because you ran out of space on your card).

These things may not apply to *you*, but they can and do occasionally apply to *some *people, sometimes, and in those cases, jpeg only leads to better image quality.  So saying that the information is "wrong" is saying that they are lying, basically.

And I don't even really care if you do insult such people.  Maybe you think they ARE liars, and deserve to be insulted *shrug*  But it's inconsistent to say "oh we should respect people's opinions and it's your choice! But also, these people are completely wrong." at the same time.



edit: the post above mine being another example: effective image quality of a jpeg is higher than a RAW if the jpeg is small enough to wirelessly transmit to a commentator before it is needed while a RAW is not (thus resulting in zero useful image)


----------



## Benco (Jul 8, 2013)

Overread said:


> So JPEG does have a place in the world, even in the professional world. It's an example of where most of the photographers shooting can use both approaches - they've learned what the strengths and weaknesses are for each and have made the choice to use from an informed position .



That's a balanced, reasoned and unbiased statement. It has absolutely no place on a JPG Vs raw thread, shame on you!


----------



## AlanKlein (Jul 8, 2013)

Isn't JPEG like chromes were years ago.  Either you got the shot or you didn't and then you threw the shot away if you screwed up.  No one wrung their hands about not being able to see inside shadows much. Sure they used grad ND filters, or maybe bracketed if there was time like in landscape photos, but you either got it or not.  There was no down time after with out-of-camera adjustments now called post processing.  You were back out taking pictures which for many is more important than sitting by a computer.  Isn't that similar with JPEG?  It is kind of freeing to focus on getting a creative shot and being very aware of exposure while shooting. And then moving on to the next shot.


----------



## Overread (Jul 8, 2013)

I'd liken JPEGs more to being akin to sending your film to the lab to be processed whilst RAW is processing the film at home. 

JPEG gets some standard treatment the same for each and every shot which is always to the same standard. You can change the standard (with JPEG only before you take the shot of course) but its always applied the same unless you change it yourself and you can't react to the shot you have to do it before.


You can, of course, still edit a JPEG, but the amount of light data you have is less and thus the possibilities are reduced. Some things will take longer to do well whilst others can be near impossible - White balance is often hard or impossible to correct if you get way out when shooting JPEG - whilst with RAW its a few seconds to adjust.


----------



## Buckster (Jul 8, 2013)

AlanKlein said:


> Isn't JPEG like chromes were years ago.  Either you got the shot or you didn't and then you threw the shot away if you screwed up.  No one wrung their hands about not being able to see inside shadows much. Sure they used grad ND filters, or maybe bracketed if there was time like in landscape photos, but you either got it or not.  There was no down time after with out-of-camera adjustments now called post processing.  You were back out taking pictures which for many is more important than sitting by a computer.  Isn't that similar with JPEG?  It is kind of freeing to focus on getting a creative shot and being very aware of exposure while shooting. And then moving on to the next shot.


If someone wants to live in the past by using older technology, that's their business and they're welcome to it.  But to sit and make statements that make it clear that he thinks that people who shoot RAW do it because they're basically insecure rookies who don't have enough experience to know schitt about what they're doing yet, while the great Will Crockett has been shooting for 30 some-odd years - well, that's just pure bull.

There are a LOT of pro photographers today who shoot RAW, both big names and everyday working photographers from coast to coast, and they are certainly not insecure rookies.  There are a LOT of non-pro photographers as well who have been shooting for 30, 40, 50 years and beyond who are certainly not insecure and DO know what they're doing.  In many cases, they simply chose not to take a chance at a life as a starving artist, having had much better career options.

As far as I'm concerned, Will Crockett can take his steaming pile of condescension, get together with ego-maniacal know-it-all Ken Rockwell, and they can both go pound salt into each other back sides while pontificating on video about how they're the salt-pounding experts.


----------



## Gavjenks (Jul 8, 2013)

> Isn't JPEG like chromes were years ago. Either you got the shot or you didn't and then you threw the shot away if you screwed up. No one wrung their hands about not being able to see inside shadows much. Sure they used grad ND filters, or maybe bracketed if there was time like in landscape photos, but you either got it or not. There was no down time after with out-of-camera adjustments now called post processing. You were back out taking pictures which for many is more important than sitting by a computer. Isn't that similar with JPEG? It is kind of freeing to focus on getting a creative shot and being very aware of exposure while shooting. And then moving on to the next shot.



Keep in mind that by doing things like bracketing exposure (as you mentioned) or screwing and unscrewing filters, you are taking more time in the field to fiddle with settings to get your initial jpeg right.  Whereas somebody shooting RAW doesn't really need to worry as much about bracketing exposure. Depending on how efficient you are with your computer, this may end up being just as much or even more time spent fiddling in the field than you would have spent fiddling on the computer.

So if your goal is to spend the most time making creative decisions in the field, it may actually be a bit ambiguous whether jpeg or RAW are actually the most efficient, depending on your own personal habits, computer skills, etc. Assuming you devote an equal number of hours in both cases to "photography" (fiddling and creative decisions, field vs. post processing, etc. etc.)


----------



## tecboy (Jul 8, 2013)

I agree with Overread and Gavjenks, but if you read their websites, they started the war of controversies about jpeg vs raw.  They actually hate raw file format and some hate photographers shooting raw.  I have met several photographers who shoot jpeg, and I didn't argue about that.  It is not a good idea to distort the truth.  I started shooting jpeg a while back, and now I shoot raw.  Just don't says photographers are "not professional" because they shoot raw.


----------



## Gavjenks (Jul 8, 2013)

tecboy said:


> I agree with Overread and Gavjenks, but if you read their websites, they started the war of controversies about jpeg vs raw.  They actually hate raw file format and some hate photographers shooting raw.  I have met several photographers who shoot jpeg, and I didn't argue about that.  It is not a good idea to distort the truth.  I started shooting jpeg a while back, and now I shoot raw.  Just don't says photographers are not "professional" because they shoot raw.



Well if he says that elsewhere (the "non-professional" thing), then that's pretty inappropriate, yes.


----------



## AlanKlein (Jul 8, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> > Isn't JPEG like chromes were years ago. Either you got the shot or you didn't and then you threw the shot away if you screwed up. No one wrung their hands about not being able to see inside shadows much. Sure they used grad ND filters, or maybe bracketed if there was time like in landscape photos, but you either got it or not. There was no down time after with out-of-camera adjustments now called post processing. You were back out taking pictures which for many is more important than sitting by a computer. Isn't that similar with JPEG? It is kind of freeing to focus on getting a creative shot and being very aware of exposure while shooting. And then moving on to the next shot.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




You raise very valid points.  I think the idea I was trying to convery is that years ago, some really great photography was made with chromes which  "locked-in" the final result sort of like JPEG at the time the shot was made.  Yet the photos were phenominal as Nat GEo, Life and other purveyors of photography showed.  The limitation of chromes didn't stop really great photos.  Creativity, composition, story telling, beauty was all there.  I'm not saying RAW is no good.  Far from that.  I appreciate the greater flexibility it gives you.  I'm only trying to make a point that JPEG could be as good as chromes were.  If RAW never existed, only JPEGs with great content exposed properly, don't you think we'd still have some very great photography regardless?    And the counterpoint this raises is if the photo has none of these other qualities, will RAW save it?    How many people waste their time trying to dress up RAW pictures in post that truly can't be saved because they lack the innate qualities that make a photo great? Does RAW photography encourage carelessness and lack of creativty in many?  Would they be better off forgeting about the technical tools and focusing on capturing the right shot?  Just some food for thought.


----------



## kathyt (Jul 8, 2013)

It is all about whatever works for you as a photographer. If Jpeg is working for you then great. If you find that RAW is yielding better results then stick with RAW. Everyone has different ways of getting from A to Z. I know amazing photographers that shoot in both Jpeg and in RAW. I don't really care if they shoot in their underwear as long as they are happy with their end results. Who is it really hurting anyways?


----------



## unpopular (Jul 8, 2013)

In one of his comments he wrote:



> [FONT=arial, sans-serif]camera makers are moving away from RAW[/FONT]
> [FONT=arial, sans-serif]


[/FONT]

[FONT=arial, sans-serif]Which makes me think he doesn't really know what raw is. He clearly isn't very well versed. Does he really think Lord of the Rings was shot in MPEG?[/FONT]

[FONT=arial, sans-serif]---[/FONT]

[FONT=arial, sans-serif]As some of you may know, I am a big proponent of self limitation, so I get what he's saying here about that. But with so many other areas which could be pared down, zoom lenses, AF, AE, and all the other stuff that more or less makes a DSLR into a really big p/s, raw is kind of the last thing I think of. I am also not totally sure what limiting yourself in this way owuld accomplish, perhaps make you a better technical photographer without the ability to 'just fix it in post', but I also think it promotes an SOOC attitude which creates this feeling that processing and post some kind of inconvenience, rather than a continuum from exposure.

This kind of attitude takes digital photography with all it's flexibility and advantages, and sends it to the bad old days of slide film. The fact that this 'old pro' uses his experience with slide film to sort of validate his views on jpeg and raw kind of makes sense ... but he's not the only one who's shot a few slides, and I for one don't miss it one bit.[/FONT]


----------



## Gavjenks (Jul 8, 2013)

> How many people waste their time trying to dress up RAW pictures in  post that truly can't be saved because they lack the innate qualities  that make a photo great? Does RAW photography encourage carelessness and  lack of creativty in many?  Would they be better off forgeting about  the technical tools and focusing on capturing the right shot?  Just some  food for thought.


Yeah you should probably only use it for correcting legitimate exposure and color errors, or as a replacement for bracketing if you KNOW that the RAW is going to add enough extra range to cover your "fudge" factor.  

Not as a "spray and pray" blind safety net.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 8, 2013)

It's not like we didn't 'fix exposure' in the darkroom, either. We even had chemicals specific for this purpose. Every time you did a test strip, this is pretty much exactly what you were doing.

For some reason now adjusting a stop is like some kind of mortal sin. Was mixing a batch of reducer or waiting another couple seconds on the print exposure so difficult to justify all the 'get it right in the camera' lines?


----------



## amolitor (Jul 9, 2013)

I will never tire of watching people on internet forums respond to what they imagine someone probably said rather than what that same someone _actually said_. Some people can't be bothered to pay enough attention to read, or listen, or whatever. They see a title, they pick up on a few words, and they decide what the chap must be saying. Because it's probably the same thing that other chap didn't say, and the chap before him didn't say.

Then they put on their Hat Of Internet Fury and reply.


----------



## bratkinson (Jul 9, 2013)

Gavjenks comment regarding more creativity from a more constrained position as a psychological phenomenon got me to thinkingWere the authors of the great novels of years ago, be it William Shakespeare or Dashiell Hammett (The Maltese Falcon, et al) constrained by the fact they used the comparatively clunky old pen and ink or typewriter, respectively? Did the fact that they had to write perfect copy, no erasures, cross-outs, etc, constrain their creativity? Or, more importantly, WHEN did they have their creativity? Perhaps WHERE did they have their creativity? And at what point did they record their creative expressions on paper? 

Remembering my many years as a mainframe computer consultant/analyst/programmer, my big creativity point was when I first laid out in my head the blocks of code that had to be written. It was only at/with the pencil and paper (coding forms and punch cards, back then) and later the keyboard at a CRT that I filled in all the details of each chunk of code. One could hardly consider writing code for payroll calculations or inventory creative. It was more like: heres the formulas to use, plug them in. The creativity was more in the conceptualization stages, rather than the doing stages. 

For what its worth, the company I work for produces a calendar each year with 12 photos of their equipment in action submitted by employees. I have a very specific photograph in mind I'd like to submit, but need the weather to cooperate to get that foggy night I have in mind. Is my creativity at the point of framing, setting exposure and clicking the shutter? (doing) Or is it when I visualized the photograph in my mindweeks, if not months, before taking the photograph? (conceptualization) My camera is still in the car waiting for that night.

As far as the great Raw vs JPG debate I fall into the whatever works for me for that situation category. For situations where the WB is going to change from second to second such as flouresent + incandescent + sodium (or?) vapor lighting all in the same room, trying to get the WB correct in the camera IS impossibleno grey/white/whatever card made can change 60 times per second as does florescent lighting does. So, in those situations, its set the WB in post, theres no other choice. So much for get it right in the camera. 

But Id be the first one to admit that when I transitioned from film to digital about 2001, I didnt even know what WB or RAW was, and was perfectly happy leaving my Canon G3 and later, G5 on Auto WB and JPG and firing away. But then, it was a major battle with the very early Photoshop freebie that came with the G3 to get the colors right. I didnt know any better. And I have this forum to thank for their information that there IS such as thing as white balance and how to fix it. Later, reading about raw vs JPG, I switched to raw+JPG and shoot in both 100% of the time. That way, if Im satisfied with the JPGs, I can make quick touch ups and go with it. I also use the JPGs to make my first pass decisions on what to delete and what raws go to Lightroom for editing. And perhaps the big downside of raw (+JPG)?...On the 5D3, it eats memory cards like theres no tomorrow! Ive learned the hard way to carry more than I did when I had a 60D!

So is JPG better than raw? From the lazy photographer point of view, absolutely! It saves editing time and can get me out of the dark roomercomputer room a lot faster! However, at the same time, shooting raw has enabled me to fix nearly everything but mis-composed, missed-focus, camera shake, too-slow shutter speed and the worst of the under/over exposed shots. And dont forget an occasional lens flare or chromatic aberration, or barrel distortion, etc., too!


----------



## tecboy (Jul 9, 2013)

Anyway, the getting right camera video is pretty funny.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 9, 2013)

I really don't like the idea that the only purpose for raw is to fix mistakes. this is kind of like saying the only reason to adjust developer time is to fix a missed exposure.


----------



## Tinderbox (UK) (Jul 9, 2013)

I shoot RAW, i need every bit of help i can get to produce a good photo 

John.


----------



## Ysarex (Jul 9, 2013)

unpopular said:


> I really don't like the idea that the only purpose for raw is to fix mistakes. this is kind of like saying the only reason to adjust developer time is to fix a missed exposure.



:thumbup: Right. Saving and processing raw files (for me) is about achieving excellence -- the very best photo I can get by taking full advantage of the tools available and devoting the time and effort to learn to use those tools to best advantage. The process extends seamlessly from end to end starting with the camera and ending with the finished photo. Over the course of nearly 40 years now it's been my experience that if I hand any segment of that process over to an automated system (software algorithms etc.) that automated system will do the only thing it can do: apply a rule of averages which is the essence of what makes automation possible. I'm not trying to achieve average I'm trying to achieve excellent. Raw file in hand can I produce a better photo than the software in the camera? Every time. Can I produce a better photo than someone editing JPEGs? Most of the time.

Excellence is one of those extreme, absolute concepts that we have to be careful with. When you mix excellence with reality you end up with compromise and that's a good thing. If you're unwilling to compromise then you never get anything done. You don't want to just throw your hands up and quit. Holding up excellence as a goal is the right thing to do, but productive excellence means that at the end of the day you're happy that you worked to your very best ability and you look forward to trying again tomorrow. I think my photos could be a little more excellent if I had 645DF+, but right now I'm compromising.

As for shooting JPEG, it is likewise valid. The working parameters can change to require a compromise (some degree of automation in exchange for efficiency).  Overread made the case perfectly -- the job requirements can be the final determinant -- journalism being the perfect example. I was initially trained by a sports professional (staff photographer for the baseball Cardinals) and I learned that among the different specialties in photography there is none more exacting than action journalism. Their job today requires they shoot JPEG. It's ridiculous to suggest that they're not as committed to achieving excellence as I am.

Joe


----------



## ShaneF (Jul 9, 2013)

Ansel Adams "Got it right in camera" then also spent hours mastering his images in the dark room dodging and burning etc tweeking his images. In this day and age are darkroom is photoshop and lightroom.  

When you took film to be developed the masters that developed your film in the darkroom also tweaked your images to come out the best they could, there has always been post processing tweaking and always will be so why not shoot raw to have the most information available to do so,


----------



## unpopular (Jul 9, 2013)

When I make a photograph, I make decisions about the exposure based on how I intend to process the image to best utilize the gamut available.

For example, [ideally] I will meter the hilights and the shadows to determine how I will make the exposure. If the region I place in Zone IX puts the shadows above Zone V, I'd want to pull the hilights back a stop and use an S-Curve in processing. If the shadows are below Zone V, I can just add a simple gamma-curve.

Would this work for photographers who benefit most from JPEG's advantages? Most certainly not. But the feeling that the only reason to shoot RAW is to fix problems is really a short-sighted way to look at processing - which in my view is as much a part of photography as exposure.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 9, 2013)

ShaneF said:


> Ansel Adams "Got it right in camera"



Adams 'got it right in camera' with the understanding of how it would be processed. I don't think Adams had this split view of photography that seems to exist in chrome and digital, he seems to have seen exposure, process and print under one continuous umbrella called 'photography'. Adams did "get it right in camera", but at the same time if you processed a N-1.3 exposure according to the instructions on the package, it will come out dense.

That's kind of what raw-deniers are suggesting to do. Just shoot everything at N±0, and if the shadows plug up, then you've just got to eat it because you've only 64 shades of grey (lolz) below Zone V to work with on an 8-bit image.


----------



## amolitor (Jul 9, 2013)

It's possible that some of the raw deniers are more like me. I don't give a damn about a few blocked up shadows or blown out highlights, I don't consider these technical issues to be particularly important. I don't pay much attention to the, uh, "debate" though.


----------



## Tony S (Jul 9, 2013)

I always shoot in RAW, but when it gets cold out little Willy shrinks.  :neutral:


----------



## Superfitz (Jul 9, 2013)

tecboy said:
			
		

> I don't have problem with people shooting jpeg.  However, this video claims jpeg is better than raw.
> 
> Why I REALLY Shoot Portraits in JPEG instead of RAW. - YouTube



JPEG is better than raw. What is the problem with someone believing that an stating why?


----------



## amolitor (Jul 9, 2013)

Superfitz said:


> tecboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Didn't you just get through trolling a thread with this?
HA HA HA HA HA! IT WAS SUPER FUNNY THE FIRST TIME AND NOW ALMOST A DAY LATER IT'S BOUND TO BE EVEN MORE FUNNY!

HA HA HAHAHAHA!!!!!!


----------



## unpopular (Jul 9, 2013)

Superfitz said:


> What is the problem with someone believing that an stating why?



I love this kind of argument. It's like saying 'it's ok to have an opinion provided that you don't disagree with anyone elses' opinion'.

Likewise, we could be asking, 'what's wrong with disagreeing with someone's opinion and stating why?'

The guy is a complete charlatan, I have no idea where he is coming from. but as far as I can tell he's just a guy with a vlog. He doesn't seem to know what raw files are by stating 'camera makers are turning away from raw' - even if this were true, why stick with jpeg and not switch to lossless png? He repeatedly states that 'most pros shoot jpeg', and that 'video is always [mpeg]' and that there is now RAW for video, both points are completely false.

He's a DANGER TO PHOTOGRAPHY!


----------



## Superfitz (Jul 9, 2013)

amolitor said:
			
		

> Didn't you just get through trolling a thread with this?
> HA HA HA HA HA! IT WAS SUPER FUNNY THE FIRST TIME AND NOW ALMOST A DAY LATER IT'S BOUND TO BE EVEN MORE FUNNY!
> 
> HA HA HAHAHAHA!!!!!!



Easy there big fella! I am not trolling. It is a real question. Out of all the videos/blogs out there why focus in on this one to dispute? Nice caps though.


----------



## Superfitz (Jul 9, 2013)

unpopular said:
			
		

> I love this kind of argument. It's like saying 'it's ok to have an opinion provided that you don't disagree with anyone elses' opinion'.
> 
> Likewise, we could be asking, 'what's wrong with disagreeing with someone's opinion and stating why?'
> 
> ...



Ah.... Got it. You are saying there is quite a bit of mis-information in there. Make sense to me now. Thanks


----------



## tecboy (Jul 9, 2013)

Superfitz said:


> tecboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Why don't you shoot raw and do post processing yourself and see how you like it?


----------



## Superfitz (Jul 9, 2013)

tecboy said:
			
		

> Why don't you shoot raw and do post processing yourself and see how you like it?



I have. I don't really care for it, or see the sense in it. Actually I've shot raw+jpeg, and when I did the baseline edits to the raw it ended up looking like the jpeg anyway. Any other edits that i need to be done can be made to a jpeg just as easy to a raw. That being said, there is no reason for me to do that initial edit to a raw file.


----------



## Compaq (Jul 9, 2013)

Lol, most you guys criticizing the video don't understand what he's saying. He is not telling you how to make your art, but merely telling how shooting jpeg helps him as an artist. Then he suggests that maybe you will benefit from it also. I found it enlightening; I have not looked on the the raw vs jpeg debate from that angle before.


----------



## Gavjenks (Jul 9, 2013)

> _I really don't like the idea that the only purpose for raw is to fix mistakes. this is kind of like saying the only reason to adjust developer time is to fix a missed exposure._


RAW doesn't add THAT much more dynamic range, etc.  If you use it on purpose for effect or to be able to use a faster shutter speed, then you had better know precisely what you are doing, and be underexposing or whatever by precisely the right amount, or your RAW plans will go awry. That's fine, but it's tricky, and I assume anybody legitimately trying to do that knows what they're on about and will ignore any comments otherwise.

If you treat it as a "mistakes only" tool, then it's more likely to be useful by giving you a little cushion in color and exposure, which is what will probably be useful to most people, especially ones still considering whether to shoot RAW or jpeg.  They most likely are not considering purposefully pushing their images, etc.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 9, 2013)

Raw doesn't add dynamic range, per-sey, but it does permit higher bit depth.

This allows you to ETTR, which gives legroom for the shadows that would normally be plugged up.


----------



## Steve5D (Jul 9, 2013)

tecboy said:


> I shoot raw files and export to jpeg and upload to website and my ipad. Why these people are so adamant about jpeg better than raw? This is false information. If you want to shoot jpeg, then go ahead. People have a choice, but don't insult photographers who are shooting raw.



They're adamant for the same reason people are adamant about raw being better. It's what they believe.

Personally, I don't shoot raw too often. There's just no need to. 

With the gig I have now, I just hand my card in to the nice lady in the office and she deletes the photos she doesn't want, and uploads the rest. So, workwise, shooting raw just isn't a viable option.

Even so, during my 3-1/2 week cross country trip, I may have shot raw, maybe, once or twice. I just didn't see a need to do it...


----------



## jake337 (Jul 9, 2013)

RAW, TIFF, JPEG, ETC....  

These are simply tools in your bag just like your lenses, flashes, filters, etc.


Use the tool that best fits given the situation at hand.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 9, 2013)

What i don't understand is why are camera companies so damn stuck on jpeg? it's just an all-around lousy format. PNG is way better on every level. It can be compressed similarly to jpeg, can be left uncompressed, supports 16bit file formats and is an open format (i think). It's all around more suitable for about every application.


----------



## Overread (Jul 9, 2013)

unpopular said:


> What i don't understand is why are camera companies so damn stuck on jpeg? it's just an all-around lousy format. PNG is way better on every level. It can be compressed similarly to jpeg, can be left uncompressed, supports 16bit file formats and is an open format (i think). It's all around more suitable for about every application.



Probably because your average user has never heard of PNG. 
Most people have heard of JEPGs - in fact even just shifting to RAW (which is documented in the manuals of most cameras with the feature) confuses them for ages. IF they changed the base working file type it would lead to mass confusion in the market; that is a bad thing for any manufacturer as it means MORE costs for them in product support and also a chance that they will lose a proportion of the market.

Now granted they could phase it in pretty easily by just giving us the option to save in different formats alongside JPEG, however I'm unsure if there are any legal barriers to that aspect with regard to using a different generic file type. Otherwise it might be a software aspect on storage space and how the camera works internally - it could also simply be a case that they don't think its worthwhile since they likely assume anyone taking "photographer seriously" will simply use RAW all the time.


----------



## tecboy (Jul 9, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> tecboy said:
> 
> 
> > I shoot raw files and export to jpeg and upload to website and my ipad. Why these people are so adamant about jpeg better than raw? This is false information. If you want to shoot jpeg, then go ahead. People have a choice, but don't insult photographers who are shooting raw.
> ...



I have never say raw is better than jpeg.  The only time I shoot jpeg is my P&S camera and my ipad.  For DSLR, all raw file format.


----------



## Gavjenks (Jul 9, 2013)

unpopular said:


> What i don't understand is why are camera companies so damn stuck on jpeg? it's just an all-around lousy format. PNG is way better on every level. It can be compressed similarly to jpeg, can be left uncompressed, supports 16bit file formats and is an open format (i think). It's all around more suitable for about every application.



PNG gets around 9:1 compression for an average image.
JPEG can get up to 100:1 compression for an average image if aggressively compressing or if the image is not too busy, and around 20:1 even at higher settings and busier images

Also, jpeg is specifically designed for naturalistic images like photos.  It cuts corners in the places that are most logical to cut corners, based on human perception of images. So even though it has higher compression that begins to enter into the lossy realm, the losses are the ones that matter least for what photographers care about. PNG is lossless, so it isn't making any of those corner cuts that we can and frankly should get away with if looking for an immediate, SOOC export format.

PNGs would not really add anything useful. They would accomplish less compression, AND do so only for the sake of retaining information that your eye doesn't see very well anyway, which is pretty silly and unnecessarily clogs up hard drives and servers. Also, it wouldn't offer a sliding scale of reasonable->high compression based on preferences in the moment, like jpeg does.

Finally, PNGs are not compatible on quite as many devices and programs as jpegs are. And some programs or websites, even if they accept PNGs, will simply turn them into jpegs anyway before using or posting them (like facebook, in order to save on storage space due to higher compression of jpegs), so if you edit a PNG to look the way you want, you won't get the results you expect when uploading, unlike a jpeg at the right compression.



For the DSLR world, PNG would just be a less useful attempt to fill a niche that jpeg already fills better for SOOC, decent looking shots that take up minimal space. Nor does it replace RAW, because PNGs are only 8 bit (still have to throw out RAW data to get there, just like before converting to jpeg) or 16-24 bit (unnecessarily large and storing a bunch of 0s you don't need). Plus, camera companies can't store as much weird metedata in PNGs like they can in their own RAWs.

PNGs are best for storing very small things like avatars or logos, etc. where you might as well have crispness at the cost of only very minor extra storage space due to small size.  They're not good for photo storage.


----------



## tecboy (Jul 9, 2013)

Superfitz said:


> tecboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Why didn't you say that in other thread instead of created a firestorm of debate.


----------



## Steve5D (Jul 9, 2013)

tecboy said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> > tecboy said:
> ...



Well, you did say that the statement that jpeg is better is false. Unless you're saying they're equally good, then your statement concludes that you believe raw to be the better format...


----------



## Steve5D (Jul 9, 2013)

jake337 said:


> RAW, TIFF, JPEG, ETC....
> 
> These are simply tools in your bag just like your lenses, flashes, filters, etc.
> 
> ...



That.

A thousand times, _that_...


----------



## tecboy (Jul 9, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> tecboy said:
> 
> 
> > Steve5D said:
> ...



Is it true that jpeg is better than raw in terms of picture quality?  Is it true photographers don't know what they are doing because they shoot raw?


----------



## Gavjenks (Jul 9, 2013)

tecboy said:


> Is it true that jpeg is better than raw in terms of picture quality?


"jpeg is better" does not imply "jpeg is better *at image quality.*"  That's a straw man.  Nobody _ever _says jpeg is better because of picture quality, unless they have absolutely no idea what they're talking about. The people who like it like it because of size, convenience, creative restriction, being able to get a shot you might not get otherwise in some situations, blah blah.



> Is it true photographers don't know what they are doing because they shoot raw?


No, and that part of it is always a ridiculous comment when somebody makes it. But not all do.


----------



## Benco (Jul 9, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> tecboy said:
> 
> 
> > Steve5D said:
> ...



raw in itself isn't better than anything, it's just data. What it can do is give you complete control over how your image is created, if you want to you can create your image as a lossless format in 16 bit colour, as I understand it that is 'better' than what can be achieved with JPG.


----------



## Steve5D (Jul 9, 2013)

tecboy said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> > tecboy said:
> ...



Huh?

Where did I say anything remotely similar to that?

I know plenty of photographer; the-gettin'-paid-makin'-a-livin'-at-it kind, that shoot jpeg.

Are _they _wrong?

I've never said that one was "wrong" or that one was "right". I never said that one was better than the other.

Really, if you're going to try to take issue with something I've said, let me float the idea that you should first make sure I actually said it...


----------



## Steve5D (Jul 9, 2013)

tecboy said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> > tecboy said:
> ...



So, revisiting this, in light of your subsequent posts, which is better?


----------



## unpopular (Jul 9, 2013)

Speaking as a person who was once all "raw! raw! raw!", I think any photographer who says that one is better than the other shows a lack of experience or appreciation. For some situations: needing a rapid frame advance, situations where lots of images will be expected with limited space to store them, and situations needing quick turnaround such as point of sale, JPEG is much more appropriate. 

In situations where precision is required, where deep shadow detail must be retained, where heavy post processing is expected, or where processing is carried out by a third party, and for black and white (yes, I'm standing by that one) then raw is better.

I do think in *most cases* raw is a better choice. But you can't really say under every situation raw is appropriate.


----------



## tecboy (Jul 9, 2013)

Others debating jpeg is better and raw is not.  They don't say anything good thing about raw.


----------



## Steve5D (Jul 9, 2013)

tecboy said:


> Others debating jpeg is better and raw is not. They don't say anything good thing about raw.



Seriously?

You're upset because someone likes something different?

Dude, I'm sorry, but that's just funny...


----------



## ShooterJ (Jul 9, 2013)

I shoot RAW when I know I'm going to want to work with the image a lot. Otherwise jpeg works just fine for me. If you're paying attention in camera even for casual shots there's not a lot of need for heavy post processing.  

RAW is really about having a lot of creative control in post.. and that's nice sometimes.  But it's not necessary all the time.


----------



## Josh66 (Jul 9, 2013)

ShooterJ said:


> I shoot RAW when I know I'm going to want to work with the image a lot. Otherwise jpeg works just fine for me. If you're paying attention in camera even for casual shots there's not a lot of need for heavy post processing.
> 
> RAW is really about having a lot of creative control in post.. and that's nice sometimes.  But it's not necessary all the time.



Exactly why I like RAW+JPG.

I used to "only shoot RAW", but lately I've been coming around to JPG.  JPG is just so much less work if you're not going to PP the **** out of every picture...  But - I do like the option to PP the **** out of it.  

So I use both.  If you're going to say that card capacity is an issue, I say buy more (or bigger) cards.  Or stop taking 50 pictures a minute...


----------



## ShooterJ (Jul 9, 2013)

Yeah, RAW+jpeg works well too.. and honestly cards aren't that expensive anymore.  My smallest is an 8g and even on that you can shoot several hundred photos in RAW.


----------



## tecboy (Jul 9, 2013)

What I'm saying here other people hate raw.  They say jpeg is better than raw in both file size and picture quality.


----------



## Josh66 (Jul 9, 2013)

"Better" is subjective.

What I think is better might not be what you think is better.


----------



## ShooterJ (Jul 9, 2013)

Well I think quality isn't just about the format. You can shoot RAW all day long, but if the shots aren't fit for toilet paper, then somebody else shooting jpeg who produces absolutely stunning work is going to get the vote in quality.

The file size is obviously bigger... but I think RAW vs. Jpeg comes down to what you intend/want out of it, as noted previously.


----------



## Josh66 (Jul 9, 2013)

RAW is certainly a larger file, but it has more information in it, so it has to be larger.  To give it a "+1" for quality, then a "-1" for file size seems kind of dumb.  If it is "higher quality", why would anyone expect it to be a smaller file?


----------



## 480sparky (Jul 9, 2013)

Let's say your front door sticks, binds, and the lockset won't work right.  You hire a handyman to fix it.  It   Now, the handyman has a ton of tools to use, but I doubt he'll get out a 40' extension ladder or a band saw or a concrete core drill... simply because HE DOESN'T NEED THEM to accomplish the task at hand.  He may use a hammer & flat screwdriver to pull the hinge pins, a hand planer to thin the door down a bit, and a screwdriver to pull the lockset apart or move the strike plate a bit.  Yet on the next job, he may need the 40' ladder and not need the planer because he just needs to replace a window pane in an old window or patch a missing shingle tab.

Image format, to me, is just like all the tools the handyman has at his disposal.  He just gets out the ones he needs to get the job done.  Just like I choose a lens, filter, tripod, or any other tool at MY disposal.  And the choice between raw and JPEG is merely a choice between two tools.


That said, I shoot raw 99.5718665% of the time.  I only shoot JPEG when I know the image is for an extremely limited audience (say, my parents in Texas want to know how much it snowed yesterday), or for quick electronic conveyance (uploading to TPF as an example in a post).


----------



## Steve5D (Jul 9, 2013)

tecboy said:


> What I'm saying here other people hate raw. They say jpeg is better than raw in both file size and picture quality.



So what?

I'm seriously at a loss as to why that could possibly be as upsetting to you as it obviously is...


----------



## Steve5D (Jul 9, 2013)

480sparky said:


> Let's say your front door sticks, binds, and the lockset won't work right. You hire a handyman to fix it. It Now, the handyman has a ton of tools to use, but I doubt he'll get out a 40' extension ladder or a band saw or a concrete core drill... simply because HE DOESN'T NEED THEM to accomplish the task at hand. He may use a hammer & flat screwdriver to pull the hinge pins, a hand planer to thin the door down a bit, and a screwdriver to pull the lockset apart or move the strike plate a bit. Yet on the next job, he may need the 40' ladder and not need the planer because he just needs to replace a window pane in an old window or patch a missing shingle tab.
> 
> Image format, to me, is just like all the tools the handyman has at his disposal. He just gets out the ones he needs to get the job done. Just like I choose a lens, filter, tripod, or any other tool at MY disposal. And the choice between raw and JPEG is merely a choice between two tools.



Wow.

Just... wow...



> That said, I shoot raw 99.5718665% of the time. I only shoot JPEG when I know the image is for an extremely limited audience (say, my parents in Texas want to know how much it snowed yesterday), or for quick electronic conveyance (uploading to TPF as an example in a post).



So which format do you think is better?


----------



## tecboy (Jul 9, 2013)

Why are we arguing?


----------



## Josh66 (Jul 9, 2013)

Good question.

There's no reason this can't be a friendly discussion.


----------



## ShooterJ (Jul 9, 2013)

Ok, that was a tough round, but we can come back from it. When he counters your counter, I want you to reverse it and agree.. while he's confused, throw in some large syllable words, keep your guard strong and shoot in for a single sentence takedown. Don't trade blows with this guy!


----------



## Josh66 (Jul 9, 2013)

ShooterJ said:


> Ok, that was a tough round, but we can come back from it. When he counters your counter, I want you to reverse it and agree.. while he's confused, throw in some large syllable words, keep your guard strong and shoot in for a single sentence takedown. Don't trade blows with this guy!



OK Coach! 



I realize this wasn't in reply to me, but that seemed to be the best reply to it.


----------



## tecboy (Jul 9, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> tecboy said:
> 
> 
> > What I'm saying here other people hate raw. They say jpeg is better than raw in both file size and picture quality.
> ...



You were helpful once, my apology for offending you.


----------



## Josh66 (Jul 9, 2013)

RAW or JPG really doesn't matter - AT ALL.  Do what you want and leave it at that.  You will never convince someone else that they are wrong.


----------



## 480sparky (Jul 9, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> So which format do you think is better?



There isn't a 'better'.  I just depends on what I'm shooting and why.


----------



## Buckster (Jul 9, 2013)

tecboy said:


> Why are we arguing?


From my observations, it's because you're trying to have a discussion and a few people who appear to get off on arguing more than anything else here have decided to participate.  Soon enough, you'll see the pattern; They tend to take a counter-view and then get into it with someone in nearly every thread they participate in so that they continue that argumentative interaction.  It's apparently their way of socializing.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 9, 2013)

ShooterJ said:


> My smallest is an 8g and even on that you can shoot several hundred photos in RAW.



I always laugh when people say that 8gb isn't enough, it wasn't that long ago that 36 exposures was all you could expect from one "storage device" considerably larger by volume than today's CF and SD cards.


----------



## ShooterJ (Jul 9, 2013)

Buckster said:


> tecboy said:
> 
> 
> > Why are we arguing?
> ...



Stress:

The confusion caused when ones mind overrides the body's natural desire to choke the living **** out of some ******* that desperately needs it.


----------



## Steve5D (Jul 9, 2013)

480sparky said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> > So which format do you think is better?
> ...



It was hard to tell, because you sure got your knickers in a twist.

If I got upset every time someone said something I disagreed with, my head would detonate. If I got upset every time someone said something I disagreed with, about something that is of, at the end of the day, absolutely no consequence, I'd have myself committed...


----------



## 480sparky (Jul 9, 2013)

unpopular said:


> ........ it wasn't that long ago that 36 exposures was all you could expect from one "storage device" .........




Never heard of an MF-23 & MF-24 backs?


----------



## Steve5D (Jul 9, 2013)

tecboy said:


> You were helpful once, my apology for offending you.



_I'm _not offended at all...


----------



## unpopular (Jul 9, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> tecboy said:
> 
> 
> > Others debating jpeg is better and raw is not. They don't say anything good thing about raw.
> ...



The guy with the vlog is a total moron, there, I said it. This is why I don't like him. Not because he shoots jpeg, but because he insists that jpeg is better and that everyone who uses raw uses it to fix problems. I don't like him because he's a self-promoted expert and the internet already has ken rockwell and zach arias. The last thing we need is this bozo telling people who don't know any better that 'almost all pros use jpeg only these days', that 'camera makers are getting away from raw' (wtf does that even mean?) and blatantly incorrect lines about how 'all video is j/mpeg'.

I don't like him because he's a douchey low-end protog who thinks he's the sh*t because he's shot a few slides 'back in the day', maybe more than a few - I don't even care, but I don't dislike him because he shoots differently than I do.

Then again, I hate all vloggers, even the ones with big boobs.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 10, 2013)

Ok. Yeah. He's officially a hack:

Hybrid Photographer Will Crockett | Client Hybrid Work


----------



## ShooterJ (Jul 10, 2013)

You know what, I don't think there's anything bad about RAW.. RAW, cooked.. it's all good... just don't **** with it when it's green and fuzzy.


----------



## Solarflare (Jul 10, 2013)

unpopular said:


> I always laugh when people say that 8gb isn't enough, it wasn't that long ago that 36 exposures was all you could expect from one "storage device" considerably larger by volume than today's CF and SD cards.


 So you're saying technology progresses and new cameras are better than old ones ?


----------



## unpopular (Jul 10, 2013)

I'm saying that you can fit more data into less physical space. The cameras themselves are more or less the same.


----------



## runnah (Jul 10, 2013)

Salmonila


----------



## unpopular (Jul 10, 2013)

I always get salmonila and semolina confused, just as I get Salina and saliva confused.


----------



## runnah (Jul 10, 2013)

unpopular said:


> I always get salmonila and semolina confused, just as I get Salina and saliva confused.



I am always confused.


----------



## pixmedic (Jul 10, 2013)

unpopular said:


> Ok. Yeah. He's officially a hack:
> 
> Hybrid Photographer Will Crockett | Client Hybrid Work



holy cow...i read his page and i still dont know WTF a "Hybrid" photographer is. judging by his work, its a cross between a crappy photographer and a #^$%@# photographer.


----------



## ShooterJ (Jul 10, 2013)

Hybrid Photographer... like, I take pictures of different ****... or, I'm a Quasimodo lookin sumbitch and this was the only handle I could think of to take the focus off my webbed feet and third eye?

EDIT: I'd like to add that this forum has failed to acknowledge Oklahoma, considering "sumbitch" is not censored. Our "hybrid" words aren't good enough for your little red button?


----------



## unpopular (Jul 10, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> holy cow...i read his page and i still dont know WTF a "Hybrid" photographer is.



I know. And he thinks he's some kind of marketing guru just to add insult to injury.

This guy is determined to be the next Ken Rockwell.


----------



## tecboy (Jul 10, 2013)

Debate all you want.  This thread is getting funnier.  There are several websites out there fill with nonsenses and bs.


----------



## pixmedic (Jul 10, 2013)

unpopular said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > holy cow...i read his page and i still dont know WTF a "Hybrid" photographer is.
> ...



i dunno...Ken set the bar awful high...
not sure that hybrid tool is even near kens league. 
at least KR is entertaining to read.


----------



## ShooterJ (Jul 10, 2013)

WTF??! There are websites full of BS? You're ****tin me! :what:


----------



## Gavjenks (Jul 10, 2013)

If I'm grokking it correctly, I think hybrid is supposed to mean what a normal person would call "multimedia?"

Anyway, yeah, that's kind of a depressing web page.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 10, 2013)

The guy demands my URL, then bans me from his youtube channel.

How cheap is that??


----------



## ShooterJ (Jul 10, 2013)

Getting banned often just means you're right and they know it. :lmao:


----------



## unpopular (Jul 10, 2013)

From one of his buddies:



> We can only hope Guilio can be half the technical photographer Ken Rockwell is. &#65279; He's a very bright guy and we think the world of Ken.




Well. I think that pretty much /thread


----------



## ShooterJ (Jul 10, 2013)

I have no idea who Ken Rockwell is.. that's not exactly relevant .. just saying ...


----------



## unpopular (Jul 10, 2013)

HAHAHAHAHAHA

OMFG

HE MADE A VIDEO JUST FOR ME!!!!!


----------



## runnah (Jul 10, 2013)

unpopular said:


> HAHAHAHAHAHA
> 
> OMFG
> 
> ...



Wait, people pay attention to YouTube comments?!


----------



## ShooterJ (Jul 10, 2013)

Wow, you really got under his skin .. :lmao:

I piss all kinds of people off and they never dedicate videos to me. That's just not fair...


----------



## tecboy (Jul 10, 2013)

unpopular said:


> HAHAHAHAHAHA
> 
> OMFG
> 
> HE MADE A VIDEO JUST FOR ME!!!!!



That video is very funny, Really!!!


----------



## unpopular (Jul 10, 2013)

I mean, he was right. I was being a bit of a jerk, and my intentions were kind of sh*tty, and for that I PM'd an apology, along with some clarifications.

But seriously. This made my morning.


----------



## tecboy (Jul 10, 2013)

ShooterJ said:


> WTF??! There are websites full of BS? You're ****tin me! :what:



I would like to post several links, but there will be fiery debates.  I had an enough for now.


----------



## runnah (Jul 10, 2013)

unpopular said:


> I mean, he was right. I was being a bit of a jerk, and my intentions were kind of sh*tty, and for that I PM'd an apology, along with some clarifications.
> 
> But seriously. This made my morning.



Serves him right for reading a comments section.


----------



## tecboy (Jul 10, 2013)

ShooterJ said:


> I have no idea who Ken Rockwell is.. that's not exactly relevant .. just saying ...



Are you joking, or you never heard of him?


----------



## ShooterJ (Jul 10, 2013)

.... I was just teleported to another thread trying to reply in this one..


----------



## ShooterJ (Jul 10, 2013)

Anyway tecboy.. I've heard of Ken Rockwell.. I have a poster of him on my wall and cut my chocolate chip cookies to match his profile...

No... never heard of him..

Is he somebody important that I should know?


----------



## tecboy (Jul 10, 2013)

ShooterJ said:


> Anyway tecboy.. I've heard of Ken Rockwell.. I have a poster of him on my wall and cut my chocolate chip cookies to match his profile...
> 
> No... never heard of him..
> 
> Is he somebody important that I should know?



Beware! Know the differences between fact and fiction.  Welcome to the world of ken rockwell.
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/nikon/332563-bad-advice-am-i-just-being-pesimistic.html


----------



## unpopular (Jul 10, 2013)

runnah said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > I mean, he was right. I was being a bit of a jerk, and my intentions were kind of sh*tty, and for that I PM'd an apology, along with some clarifications.
> ...



I love how he's like beet red and telling people not to get worked up.


----------



## Gavjenks (Jul 10, 2013)

ShooterJ said:


> .... I was just teleported to another thread trying to reply in this one..



You must have angered Ken Rockwell. He has powers...


----------



## ShooterJ (Jul 10, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> ShooterJ said:
> 
> 
> > .... I was just teleported to another thread trying to reply in this one..
> ...



Ah.. well that explains everything then.. :lmao:


----------



## kundalini (Jul 10, 2013)




----------



## table1349 (Jul 10, 2013)

unpopular said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > unpopular said:
> ...



Why do I get a picture of this in my mind after viewing that video?


----------



## tecboy (Jul 10, 2013)

Hopefully, this will clear things up.
RAW vs JPEG (JPG) - The Ultimate Visual Guide


----------



## runnah (Jul 10, 2013)

tecboy said:


> Hopefully, this will clear things up.
> RAW vs JPEG (JPG) - The Ultimate Visual Guide



What if I am not taking photos of Asian men?


----------



## pixmedic (Jul 10, 2013)

runnah said:


> tecboy said:
> 
> 
> > Hopefully, this will clear things up.
> ...



why wouldn't you be?


----------



## runnah (Jul 10, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> why wouldn't you be?



Fair point, but sometime I do stray to South Pacific grandmothers and need to know if the lessons apply.


----------



## pixmedic (Jul 10, 2013)

runnah said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > why wouldn't you be?
> ...



fair enough


----------



## amolitor (Jul 10, 2013)

Is it too late to add my stock remark to the effect that JPEG theoretically can, and apparently sometimes does, include better noise reduction than what you can do in post?

JPEG+RAW, blend to taste, FTW. According to Ctein.

Congrats on the bespoke video! I think that counts as victory. They'll never be Ken Rockwell as long as they respond to critics, though. Everyone knows that you mustn't respond to critics. Tsk tsk.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 10, 2013)

I wonder if he's reading this right now? I hope he makes an anti-TPF video.


----------



## runnah (Jul 10, 2013)

unpopular said:


> I wonder if he's reading this right now? I hope he makes an anti-TPF video.



Anti TPF?

Can't be done.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 10, 2013)

if anyone can, beet-faced quasimoto can.


----------



## Gavjenks (Jul 10, 2013)

The non over/underexposed examples on that page are not particularly convincing.


----------



## pixmedic (Jul 10, 2013)

unpopular said:


> if anyone can, beet-faced quasimoto can.



the funny part was him criticizing turnipwhatshisface for leaving an ugly youtube message and how unnecessary it is to make it personal.....then calls the guy stupid in every other sentence on the video.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 10, 2013)

I know, right? I mean, I was way over the top. But the irony hadn't escaped me.

Then again, he pretty much admits that these videos are intended for low-end audiences:



> Where did we lead you to believe that our info is aimed at big budget Hollywood image creation? It's not. We are the leaders of the pro still shooters that are working toward making profitable eProducts



What he means by this is that it's for people interested in obsolete Web 1.0 marketing techniques.


----------



## table1349 (Jul 10, 2013)

unpopular said:


> I wonder if he's reading this right now? I hope he makes an anti-TPF video.


I'm just surprised he hasn't blown your brain up with his mind.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 10, 2013)

or his little mirrorless minions don't track me down.

i think he's starting a cult. i really do.


----------



## TCampbell (Jul 10, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > if anyone can, beet-faced quasimoto can.
> ...



Yeah -- so I checked his original video (the JPEG video) and then the special video he made for Unpopular.

My impression is... (a) this guy is yet another hack trying to "make a name" for himself by being controversial and (b) lacks class.  He's just a wee bit too full of himself.

When he made the comment about photography forums on the Internet, my first thought was "waitaminute... photography forums on the Internet actually HELP people.  What are YOU doing to help?  While I've never heard of him and this was the first video I watched... I certainly couldn't count that video that JPEG will help you build confidence (as though we have a confidence problem -- I was unaware, but hey... maybe I'm slow.)  Yeah that didn't bode well for the "helping" people category.

I'm not always against people being full of themselves.  I don't always mind someone who is cocky... when they're talented AND right.  But this guy doesn't seem particularly talented and he's certainly not "right" on the issue.  

I pretty much agree with the assessment that he likes to hear himself talk.  I see a lot of videos... where the person who makes the video, isn't actually IN the video.  That's because the video is primarily to show off subject-matter and NOT show off the person who made it or the person talking.  His video was... well pretty much the opposite of that.  <shrug>

I'm not against JPEG.  I use it from time to time (apparently when I need to build confidence) mostly if I know I'll be away from my computer for a few days but want to review my images on my iPad (which can't import my camera's RAW files.)  If you put your camera into continuous shooting mode... you'll get a lot more shots before the internal buffers fills and the frame-rate drops (and on some cameras the card-transfer speed is fast enough that the frame-rate will never drop and you can shoot until your card is full.)  

While he might think he's a great photographer for "committing" to his image by shooting RAW, I can show him some AWESOME photographers (who certainly blow away his work) who work quite diligently in their post production (even though what they STARTED with before the post work looks a helluva lot better than what most people FINISH with when they're done.)  This is because... they're standards are higher.


----------



## Compaq (Jul 11, 2013)

What's with the downputting? He's not preaching, merely suggesting. 

What's the point in telling him he's wrong? What, and you're right? Consider his advice, use it or forget it. What's the big deal?


----------



## tecboy (Jul 11, 2013)

The point is there are photographers out there giving misleading informations that contradicts what I have learned in photography.  It just lead to confusion and controversy.  Other Photographers out there need to know who are these misleading photographers before they get themselves into.  These misleading photographers are trying to get money and fame in the wrong way, and they succeed.  Just to let other photographers to beware of these misleading photographers.  

There are plenty of Internet articles out there similar to ken rockwell and will crockett.  There is one highly controversial article is worst than rockwell and crockett combined.


----------



## Overread (Jul 11, 2013)

So at the end of 10 pages we've summarised that part of learning is learning not just the information but WHO to listen to. This is the same as it always has been - lecturers, books, internet articles, friends, professionals, amateurs etc.... - people and information sources are all around us and part of learning is learning who to listen to.

And a part of that in itself is learning that not everyone is right and not everyone is wrong. Sometimes those highly opinionated views might be wrong in the general sense of learning a skill; but they are just right for a segment of the market who want to learn about that far and no further - not everyone with camera wants to learn it all.


----------



## pixmedic (Jul 11, 2013)

I shoot raw because i run everything through LR anyway. 
so my question now is....given the fact that i will process everything through Lightroom, and have no need to take something straight from the camera to the web or a tablet, and my time for processing is NOT a concern...(just for the sake of this question)
IS there a scenario where I will get a result by shooting jpeg that i CAN NOT get by shooting raw and processing in LR or PS?
or is the only real advantage is that you don't have to do the post processing?
(I hope i worded this question right)


----------



## Overread (Jul 11, 2013)

Pix its lost in the sea of madness that is 10 pages, but JPEG has bonuses in some areas - for example if you need a fast instant photo, light in file size and also one where you are unlikely to do anything but crop a little in editing. 

Such examples can include:

1) sports photographers who often are sending the files right off the camera to an assistant with a laptop and then direct to the editor pretty much as soon as they are taken (wireless file transfer). In that field they need the small size of JPEG to help speed up the transfer processes and they gain nothing by introducing a RAW photo to the setup as they are unlikely to need the higher potential quality for news or web print and they are unlikely to spend any time over editing. 

2) fast studio to print setups - those kind where you've fixed flash setups and just process people through the seat/poses to get the shots and then print them off fast. Again its a situation where RAW just brings no benefit and can slow the overall process. 

Note in both cases photographers can shoot RAW+JPEG - giving them the fast JPEG for the now need and a RAW if they want to touch it up for a later use when they've more time. 

Affordable batch processing like Lightroom might slowly change things for some photographers, but otherwise JPEG does have a place in the world


----------



## Buckster (Jul 11, 2013)

I'm reminded that once upon a time, in the earliest days of photography, photographers all did their own developing and processing to print.  Learning the darkroom techniques of the day was all a part of that, and the whole process, start to finish, camera to processing to final print was ALL just a means to get to the *FINAL* product: The image that others could view.

Then Kodak came along and said, "we'll do the processing for you!   Not only that, we'll even load and unload and reload the camera for you!!"  That was a fundamental shift in the photography landscape, and turned every Tom, Dick and Jane into a "photographer" because all they had to do then was learn to operate a camera well enough to not blow out the highlights or block up the shadows too terribly much.  And that's the way it was, for the most part, for the next 100+ years or so, as millions of Toms, Dicks and Janes handed off their undeveloped rolls of film to processing labs, who made most of the processing and printing choices for them, unless given special instructions, which wasn't very common.

Of course, many photographers retained full control of everything from start to finish, and continued to refine the processes used in the darkroom, but they were far, FAR outnumbered by the masses that came to be known as shutterbugs who knew little to nothing about anything beyond the camera operation.

With the shift to digital, a lot of the Tom, Dick and Janes have gone back to taking that developing/processing to print part of photography back into their own hands and are actively making their own developing choices again.

Crockett seems to be stuck in the, "somebody else do it for me" world that Kodak created, and that's fine for him and anyone else that wants to do things that way.  But to claim that it makes him more creative, or for him to even imply that it makes him or his choices better in some way is just ridiculous.  

For him to claim that he's right because he's shot for so long and gets gigs shooting for Fortune 500 companies is a logical fallacy.  There are plenty of people who've shot as long or longer than him that suck, and frankly, I'm not terribly impressed by anything I saw on his web site.  As for the Fortune 500 gigs, it's a lot like being a pop star - it's not necessarily talent that gets you the big star - it's more marketing and promotion combined with the fact that the masses and clients we serve often don't know shat from shinola, or we wouldn't have had disco or Justine Bieber.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 11, 2013)

^^^ very well worded.

But I personally have my doubts about the 'fortune 500' line. I don't doubt that he's maybe photographed some mid-level employee who happened to work for one of the 500 largest corporations in America - that is, after all, a lot of local branches full of paper pushes, maybe he even had a pretty sweet gig at one point. But I doubt very much that he's the Fortune Magazine's 'go to guy' for corporate photography the way he blabs on about it.

Photographing a few head shots for an investment banker at a local Bank of America is hardly the same thing as photographing the CEO. I'm looking through the list to see if I've ever had a Fortune 500 client myself!

I know a few very high-end photographers and some pretty competent cinematographers who have worked on some major high budget television programs. The one thing these people have in common is that they let their work speak for itself. They don't need the admiration from vlog groupies, they don't need to go off on and make a video just for some random troll on youtube.

But who knows, maybe when corporations need a photographer, they go to Crockett. Not to knock people's bread and butter, but that's all that corporate photography is: bread and butter. Wonderbread, to be precise. You'd be fooling yourself if you thought it was anything more.


----------



## Gavjenks (Jul 11, 2013)

> my time for processing is NOT a concern...(just for the sake of this question)
> IS there a scenario where I will get a result by shooting jpeg that i CAN NOT get by shooting raw and processing in LR or PS?


Technically speaking, no.  The advantage of jpeg is that for all real world people, time for processing IS a concern.  It's just a question of whether it is enough of a concern for you to give up some flexibility.  For a pro sports photog who wants to upload images to a commentator or website within seconds, that would be an example of a result that they cannot get shooting RAW.  But only because of the processing time, not because of "better data" in any way.  It isn't.

Also, if you believe Will Crockett, then for non-technical reasons, you might be able to get a result from jpeg that you couldn't get from RAW, irrespective of processing time.  Not because of data differences, but because of the mindset it puts you in.  This may or may not be valid for YOU, but obviously it is for him.  So it happens.  Or even if it isn't true for him, it is true for some people, because this is a known, documented phenomenon (mostly for writing, not photography, but no reason it shouldn't apply).



Buckster said:


> Crockett seems to be stuck in the, "somebody else do it for me" world that Kodak created, and that's fine for him and anyone else that wants to do things that way.  But to claim that it makes him more creative, or for him to even imply that it makes him or his choices better in some way is just ridiculous.


As annoying as the guy is, this was NOT his argument.  He is not handing off his images to some underling to do the RAW processing.  He's choosing to use jpeg and the default or limited conversion settings in camera instead of the conversion on the computer.  

You might argue that amateurs who don't understand RAW and just use jpeg by default are the equivalent of people who let "the photo lab guys do it" but that's not the case here. As long as he knows what RAW can do--and he does--and chooses not to use it, then that itself is a legit technical choice of his own, equivalent to any other choice he could have made in a dark room or in software, but simply done ahead of time.

He may very well be just trying to annoyingly get a rise out of people, but the argument is still sound and is not at all ridiculous as at least a potential reason to shoot jpeg (whether it's his reason or not).  Again, creativity from constraint is a very well known and documented phenomenon in the psych literature. And even personally, I've experienced this first hand many times. I'd be surprised if you haven't, too. Anybody who finds it easier to build interesting things with Legos, for instance, instead of clay, could be said to be benefitting from this.

Or here is another, clearer example: The Storymatic: a writing prompt, a teaching tool, a parlor game, and a toy



> For him to claim that he's right because he's shot for so long and gets gigs shooting for Fortune 500 companies is a logical fallacy.  There are plenty of people who've shot as long or longer than him that suck, and frankly, I'm not terribly impressed by anything I saw on his web site.  As for the Fortune 500 gigs, it's a lot like being a pop star - it's not necessarily talent that gets you the big star - it's more marketing and promotion combined with the fact that the masses and clients we serve often don't know shat from shinola, or we wouldn't have had disco or Justine Bieber.


Yes, this part is ridiculous, but that doesn't undermine the validity of the creative constraint idea.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 11, 2013)

I am trying to form a point about the creative constraint idea. I'm a bit proponent of this concept, but it seems a little bit lacking when you're using AE/AF and zoom lenses.

I think the problem with raw is that processing is seen as this kind of detached, time consuming inconvenience which is somehow separate from photography. I suppose that makes sense, much of digital photography is a lot like shooting slide film - up until it's time to process it. It's really only the darkroom end that things start feeling really different. So I think some people kind of can't really get over this, they just can't see processing similar to working in the darkroom, adjusting development time like you would with a b/w negative, they don't see the processing as a continuous step in making an image, and rather prefer to view digital photography as slide film, or perhaps more accurately really high resolution polaroids where getting the most detail out of the camera isn't as important as getting a passable representation.


----------



## Gavjenks (Jul 11, 2013)

> I am trying to form a point about the creative constraint idea. I'm a  bit proponent of this concept, but it seems a little bit lacking when  you're using AE/AF and zoom lenses.


Why is that?  I don't see why it needs to be an "all or nothing" thing. In fact, either all or nothing is probably bad for almost everyone.  It's a sliding arc with a maximal point somewhere in the middle for everybody. The more constraint you have, the easier it is to get a creative jumpstart.  BUT also the more, well, constrained you are.  Too much constraint is unnecessary if you already had enough creative motivation before, and will only serve to make your work stagnate by always looking the same (minor iterations due to lack of flexibility).  Too little is paralyzing.

It's also going to be most efficient for each person to constrain the things that are least important to his or her own stylistic flexibility. You lock out the chaff, the silly things that just distract you.  In his case, shooting still corporate buildings and portraits may have very controlled lighting and WB, and the benefits of RAW may be more of a distraction than an asset to him.  For somebody who shoots more off the cuff in available light, perhaps RAW is part of their needed flexibility, and they may be better off constraining something else, such as focal length by only taking out one or two primes with them. Or nothing (beyond what they are forced to constrain), if they are a person who doesn't need much constraint to get started with the creative juices.

Some other people may personally benefit (at least now and then) from a larger degree of constraint in multiple aspects, like people who shoot view cameras with 8x10 film.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 11, 2013)

This is kind of my point, at what level is self limitation sufficient? Wet plate?

WB thing is pretty funny, I think. there is quite literally NO technical reason to think about WB unless you're shooting jpeg. WB correction is always done post-exposure, so I am not really convinced that thinking about w/b at exposure makes you a better photographer.


----------



## KenC (Jul 11, 2013)

unpopular said:


> WB thing is pretty funny, I think. there is quite literally NO technical reason to think about WB unless you're shooting jpeg. WB correction is always done post-exposure, so I am not really convinced that thinking about w/b at exposure makes you a better photographer.



Absolutely, and this was true even before digital if you were shooting negative film and making prints.  The color dials on the enlarger are there for a reason.  The only problem you would need to avoid (unless this is what you wanted for some reason) was mixed light sources, and this is still true now, whether you shoot raw or jpeg.  I suppose you could fix it in raw with selective color balance adjustments but it would be a real PITA.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 11, 2013)

There are some channel chops that make mixed light less of a PITA, but i've never been very good at it.

Personally I think spending too much time thinking about white balance prevents you from thinking about numbers, and not enough time thinking about how the scene looks.

There are theoretical reasons why you might want to think about w/b BEFORE exposure, using CC filters to adjust w/b optically - but that's getting into some pretty technical stuff that goes well beyond what Crockett is aiming at (and imo, likely know anything about).


----------



## AlanKlein (Jul 11, 2013)

When I go on a trip, or I'm at a party, it's nice and fun to just leave the P&S or m43 on "P" and jpeg and process the shots only with crops and a little curves and that's it.  MAybe make a slide show for playing on the computer or HDTV,  Who needs to bother with all the other stuff?  (I usually shoot jpeg + RAW just in case).  On the other hand, if I'm specifically going out for "The Shot", sure it makes sense to give muself the flexibility.   When I'm shooting film, well that's easier because I only have to focus, and set aperture and shutter, no frustrating menus.  Of course, post processing and scanning are laborious, but I use the MF camera for "The Shots" and not much else.

As I'm getting older, I'm finding that simplicity is fun and pretty good as well.


----------



## Gavjenks (Jul 11, 2013)

You definitely have to think about WB if you're mixing lights together of diff. temperatures. You can avoid a lot of headaches by flashing into a white vs. a gold umbrella when appropriate, or bouncing off an ambiently colored wall, or using a gel or something to match colors better between lights.

I never bother with available or uniform lights though

And yes, Unpopular. it has to be wetplate.  Sorrz.


----------



## tecboy (Jul 11, 2013)

AlanKlein said:


> When I go on a trip, or I'm at a party, it's nice and fun to just leave the P&S or m43 on "P" and jpeg and process the shots only with crops and a little curves and that's it.  MAybe make a slide show for playing on the computer or HDTV,  Who needs to bother with all the other stuff?  (I usually shoot jpeg + RAW just in case).  On the other hand, if I'm specifically going out for "The Shot", sure it makes sense to give muself the flexibility.   When I'm shooting film, well that's easier because I only have to focus, and set aperture and shutter, no frustrating menus.  Of course, post processing and scanning are laborious, but I use the MF camera for "The Shots" and not much else.
> 
> As I'm getting older, I'm finding that simplicity is fun and pretty good as well.



Tips?  I know there is possible way to get the nearest white balance on my canon p&s camera.  I don't fully understand some of the settings.  Maybe you or anyone else explains these?


----------



## AlanKlein (Jul 11, 2013)

Watch the colors on the screen as you switch through the different manual WB settings (ie, sunny, cloudy, flourescent 1, flourescent 2, incandescent, etc.  Stop when the colors look natural.  That's easier when there's white people in the frame as flesh looks weird when it not flesh color looking.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 11, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> You definitely have to think about WB if you're mixing lights together of diff. temperatures. You can avoid a lot of headaches by flashing into a white vs. a gold umbrella when appropriate, or bouncing off an ambiently colored wall, or using a gel or something to match colors better between lights.



Though, at this point you're thinking more about the source temperature than the compensated temperature. I suppose in theory you could compensate mixed WB to some sort of middle ground, and selectively adjust for both light sources. I personally just let mixed light be mixed light, I might adjust using hue/sat to tone it down a bit, but I'm not going to pretend that a mixed source isn't when it is.

The only sure solution is to gel the one source to match the other.


----------



## tecboy (Jul 11, 2013)

AlanKlein said:


> Watch the colors on the screen as you switch through the different manual WB settings (ie, sunny, cloudy, flourescent 1, flourescent 2, incandescent, etc.  Stop when the colors look natural.  That's easier when there's white people in the frame as flesh looks weird when it not flesh color looking.



That is a good tip! Thx.  I think my camera is kinda old, and I don't know how accurate the colors on my two inches screen.  There are maybe times I select the wrong preset white balance by mistake and shoot.  Is it possible to change the white balance correctly in Photoshop or any photo editing software?  That is also apply to my DSLR when I want to shoot jpeg.


----------



## munecito (Jul 11, 2013)

tecboy said:


> AlanKlein said:
> 
> 
> > Watch the colors on the screen as you switch through the different manual WB settings (ie, sunny, cloudy, flourescent 1, flourescent 2, incandescent, etc.  Stop when the colors look natural.  That's easier when there's white people in the frame as flesh looks weird when it not flesh color looking.
> ...



Just use Bridge to open the jpeg in camera raw and fix white balance there.

I think you can call camera raw from inside Photoshop in a jpeg but I don't know the way.

Let me google that for you


----------



## AlanKlein (Jul 11, 2013)

_It's simple to correct if your shooting RAW because the WB selection can be made in post processsing.  It's more difficult in JPEG, because the WB is "burned in"  by the camera.  However, if the colors are off in the JPEG image, you should be able to adjust colors in post to make it better if not exactly natural._


----------



## tecboy (Jul 11, 2013)

AlanKlein said:


> _It's simple to correct if your shooting RAW because the WB selection can be made in post processsing.  It's more difficult in JPEG, because the WB is "burned in"  by the camera.  However, if the colors are off in the JPEG image, you should be able to adjust colors in post to make it better if not exactly natural._



Good to know!  I'm always curious about that.  There will be times I need to use jpeg as a last resort for my DSLR.  Not exactly natural still better than not natural at all. You are a good help.  Thanks a lot, AlanKlein.


----------



## munecito (Jul 11, 2013)

It is still simple to correct in JPEG with camera raw AlanKlein.

Tecboy, even if you selected the wrong WB in a jpeg it can usually be savaged this way. Not perfect but sometimes you need to save the photo


----------



## unpopular (Jul 11, 2013)

AlanKlein said:


> _It's simple to correct if your shooting RAW because the WB selection can be made in post processsing.  It's more difficult in JPEG, because the WB is "burned in"  by the camera.  However, if the colors are off in the JPEG image, you should be able to adjust colors in post to make it better if not exactly natural._



This isn't entirely accurate. As I have mentioned, WB correction is always done post exposure, either in camera or in the raw processor. The sensor chip really has nothing to do with WB, and this has been something that I've always been pretty disappointed by with digital - I always wished that WB could be set via gain, rather than via postprocessing. In fact, the spectral sensitivity of most DSLRs is this odd emerald-green color, the raw processor actually pushes the red and blue channels to a significant degree to compensate for daylight WB - all behind your back!

JPEG has no disadvantage in terms of color correction, what it is lacking is bit depth. All images, regardless of how the data is written to the card start out the same raw data off the sensor. When you choose jpeg over raw, the camera pushes the 10-14-bit/ch RGBG data to compensate for the selected white balance, and writes it to an 8-bit/ch RGB file. Now, if you've missed the WB on that 8-bit image, you've already lost the rest of the data, including that extra green channel which is used to compute luminance while being unaffected by the green/magenta correction (i think). This makes the correction much more difficult do accomplish without introducing banding or emphasizing noise, as now you have a palet of only 256 shades per channel, rather than the 2^10 to 2^14 shades that you do with raw.

But the same exact capabilities do exist to correct WB in raw as you do in jpeg, it's only that the amount of data you have available to do it is less on the jpeg, and also the jpeg has already been manipulated significantly by the camera to make that adjustment, in a sense, 'burned in'. But the adjustment is no harder in JPEG or raw, only with less data to work with.


----------



## tecboy (Jul 11, 2013)

munecito said:


> It is still simple to correct in JPEG with camera raw AlanKlein.
> 
> Tecboy, even if you selected the wrong WB in a jpeg it can usually be savaged this way. Not perfect but sometimes you need to save the photo



Thanx, I'll take a look tomorrow.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jul 12, 2013)

munecito said:


> It is still simple to correct in JPEG with camera raw AlanKlein.
> 
> Tecboy, even if you selected the wrong WB in a jpeg it can usually be savaged this way. Not perfect but sometimes you need to save the photo
> 
> Video Link: http://youtu.be/hjbw--G8zrw



Cool, you can open a jpeg in camera raw. That still doesn't change the fact that correcting the white balance and various other tweaks will be anywhere near as effective unless it was an actual raw file.


----------



## munecito (Jul 12, 2013)

o hey tyler said:


> munecito said:
> 
> 
> > It is still simple to correct in JPEG with camera raw AlanKlein.
> ...



And that is why I said it is not perfect.

You only have to see  what happens to the histogram when you start doing adjustments to  understand that there is way less information there to begin with. 

I  am not advocating for the use of Jpeg over raw. But I think a lot of  people has been caught between a rock and a hard place at least once  when they forgot to set the camera to raw.

To avoid that I have a preshoot checklist that I use these days even if it makes people think that I suffer from an OCD.

Personally I shoot mostly raw but it is good to know that there is a few things that you can do to savage those must have shots.

Now back to the original video that started this thread, and without trying to be a smart ****. I found quite funny when the guy in the video said that shooting jpg was great because when shooting BW you can see everything in black and white before you got to a computer to do the conversion. I had a little chuckle thinking about film photographers in the past, maybe they had the advantage that the world was all in BW back then. :er:

Maybe it is just a waste of time to undertand exposure and dynamic ranges before you press the shutter, but hey, that is just me.


----------



## tecboy (Jul 12, 2013)

Please keep this thread professional and adult.
Somehow, this guy is a jerk.


----------



## HughGuessWho (Jul 12, 2013)

tecboy said:


> Please keep this thread professional and adult.
> Somehow, this guy is a jerk.



WOW! Who would have thought that a processed JPEG would have better color saturation and contrast than an unprocessed raw file. This man is a freaking genius. :raisedbrow:


----------



## unpopular (Jul 12, 2013)

He's just lazy, plain and simple.


----------



## Compaq (Jul 12, 2013)

HughGuessWho said:


> tecboy said:
> 
> 
> > Please keep this thread professional and adult.
> ...



I don't think this video is meant for those to whom the raw/jpeg-difference is common knowledge. 

Either he is lazy, or you (plural) are jealous of him not wanting to use raw files.


----------



## Gavjenks (Jul 12, 2013)

He talks to me as a viewer sort of like I'm a puppy


----------



## table1349 (Jul 12, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> He talks to me as a viewer sort of like I'm a puppy


Fetch boy....Fetch.


----------



## tecboy (Jul 12, 2013)

It is time to switch dslr to mirrorless.  Is it true mirrorless cameras have better autofocus than dslrs?


----------



## Buckster (Jul 12, 2013)

**dons personal parachute**

**opens emergency hatch**

**leaps from burning thread**


----------



## tecboy (Jul 12, 2013)

Nooooo.....DSLRs are dying!!!!!


----------



## tecboy (Jul 12, 2013)

Looks like crockett is trying to eliminate DSLR, raw, and flash entirely to built his hybrid photography empire.  Is he revolutionizing photography?  Is he the future?  Hmmmmm.....


----------



## Gavjenks (Jul 13, 2013)

The age of DSLR is over. The age of jpeg, dramatic pauses, and ridiculously heavy vignetting has begun.


----------



## tecboy (Jul 13, 2013)

After seeing so many crockett's videos, he seems convincing that mirrorless will replace DLSR.  He seems like a prophet or something, and that is what angered a lot of professional photographers.  The mirrorless cameras cost about the same as entry level DSLRs.  I have not seen photographers transition from dslrs to mirrorless cameras, but may be possible in the future.  I don't own mirrorless camera, so I don't know how true what he is saying.  He claims mirrorless cameras have better autofocus and accurate auto white balance than all dslrs.  Is that true?


----------



## Gavjenks (Jul 14, 2013)

Mirrorless cameras WILL replace DSLRS, if and when:

1) Sensor-based autofocus becomes as fast and accurate as bottom-of-camera autofocus, and
2) The live view screen can update with little enough lag that it is indistinguishable to human perception from the light speed updating of an optical viewfinder

I see no reason why both of those things can't happen, perhaps even very soon.  If/when they do, there will be absolutely no point anymore in having a mirror or pentaprism other than nostalgia or wanting to not rely on batteries.... or something.



Add on an image-transfer speed of about 1/4000th of a second for a full sensor's worth of pixels sometime in the future, and you won't even need a shutter anymore.  = Camera with no moving parts at all except for the buttons for humans to push.


----------



## tecboy (Jul 14, 2013)

If and when...  Nobody knows what the future holds.  Crockett did a very good job convincing some pro-photographers to switch from dlsr to mirrorless.  You should see some of their testimonials.  These are pretty bizarre. I think crockett is a losing battle at what is doing.   Mirrorless camera sales don't reflect potential

However,  I like his tripod.


----------



## skieur (Jul 14, 2013)

tecboy said:


> I'm not insulting anyone. I just don't like fact about giving wrong information about jpeg is better picture quality than unprocessed raw image.



Both are generalizations that involve a number of variables.  

1.  If you have a raw processing program with limited adjustments then you may be able to produce better quality jpegs in camera or with plug-ins.
2.  If you have the best and latest raw processing program then with the appropriate skills you will be able to produce better quality images.
3.  If you can edit jpegs in 16 bit then you may be able to produce quality equal to working with raw images.

Time is money for pros, so speed is also an issue.  In general terms RAW is a larger file, slower to shoot, slower to process, and slower to save, upload or download.  For a lot of successful photographers it comes down to the importance of the shot, as whether to use jpeg or raw.  For public relations or prints in small size advertising folders (for example), productions for projection,  jpeg will certainly do the job.  For art shots, celebrity portraits, magazine covers, posters, museum work, etc. RAW would probably be best.  

There is no simple black and white answer to which is best all the time.


----------



## tecboy (Jul 17, 2013)

Umm...I think everyone knows what are the differences between raw and jpeg.  Like I said before, I use raw for heavy editing and export to high quality jpeg.  I can't tell the difference on the picture quality of both raw and jpeg.  If you read further or watch the videos, crockett said raw is not a photograph, raw doesn't have enough contrast and saturation.  He also said we think raw is faster processing than jpeg.  Even everyone has a choice to follow him or not, however, I just don't like he distorts the facts and confuses others about photography.


----------



## Gavjenks (Jul 17, 2013)

Well, it is pretty much a fact that it takes longer to process.  It's an extra step added in on the way toward the same finished product.  Just like double knotting your shoes is pretty much objectively slower than single knotting them.  But you may still need to double knot your shoes in tricky situations to make sure they don't fall off... so it doesn't mean you should never double knot your shoes.  But it's also not "distorting the facts" to say it takes longer.


----------



## tecboy (Jul 17, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> Well, it is pretty much a fact that it takes longer to process.  It's an extra step added in on the way toward the same finished product.  Just like double knotting your shoes is pretty much objectively slower than single knotting them.  But you may still need to double knot your shoes in tricky situations to make sure they don't fall off... so it doesn't mean you should never double knot your shoes.  But it's also not "distorting the facts" to say it takes longer.



It is distorting the fact saying raw is not a photograph.  Beside, I don't know where he gets the idea that people say raw is faster processing than jpeg.


----------



## Solarflare (Jul 19, 2013)

I will switch to MILC once they offer me the same quality and practical usefulness as DSLRs in a more compact and more lightweight shell.

For example, my D600 can do 900 to 1200 shots on one battery. I can shoot action with it. I can manage lowlight quite brilliantly with it. No MILC I know of offers this kind of shots. Only some MILC like Nikon 1 can manage action, and they need good light for it. Only Fuji X is actually quite brilliant in low light; good enough that I would tolerate it (now Fuji X with a full 36x24mm sensor would be fun).


----------



## Kolia (Jul 19, 2013)

I can't but help see a parallel with film vs Polaroid.  Much fast to get a Polaroid print...

Honestly, would a client know the difference if you gave them an out of body jpeg instead of a reworked from RAW ? The point that the guy is making is a valid one. If jpeg is "good enough" then any extra work is a waste of time and money.


----------



## tecboy (Jul 19, 2013)

In my experiences, when I shoot jpeg, I have a hard time determine which white balance to use because the weather condition. Should I use cloudy or daylight?  There are times I will make mistake changing setting and shoot about 100 shots.  There will be times I'm not happy with the colors, contrast, sharpness, etc, and I still have to edit in photoshop.  Based on videos I watched from hybrid photograph, they have to set their milcs to get the right saturation, contrast, sharpness, and etc before shooting.  Looks like is pretty hard to look at a 2-3 inch screen while adjusting.  Unless, you have MILC, you can spend a lot time looking through the viewfinder.  I like working in lightroom, it gives better tweaking in shadows, colors, white balance, and etc.  I still shoot jpeg with my point & shoot camera and my iPad when I don't feel like carrying my dlsr. 


Crockett said dlsrs will end.  So far, when I hang around the photography community, I haven't see anyone uses milc.  I gotta stop watching his videos.  I think I'm getting brainwashed.


----------



## Gavjenks (Jul 19, 2013)

Tecboy, I recently believed that the in camera contrast and saturation settings were as powerful as RAW software, not too long ago, if you knew what you were doing and took the time to set them.  I even had a whole big thread about it on this forum.

But was proven wrong.  The cameras SHOULD offer as strong of adjustments in camera for their jpegs as is possible with RAW conversion.  There's no technical reason why they shouldn't.  But the reality is that they just don't.  Maximum contrast adjustment does not result in nearly as pulled apart jpegs as you are allowed to do in RAW conversion software.

So the theory is sound that if you are willing to put in the time to set your settings all correctly in the field, that the jpeg have all the same data as a converted RAW.   But the reality is that the software in camera is, for some reason, usually crippled by artificial ceilings on how much you can adjust it, making this sometimes a physically impossible strategy, when you need more contrast or less contrast or whatever than the in camera settings allow (even though RAW could do more).  In *addition*, of course, to the time investment in the field that you would expect to be an inherent tradeoff for such a strategy.



I assume that if enough people like Crockett pushed for it as customers, camera companies might start allowing a wider range of settings in camera with fewer artificial limits.  If so, it would become more possible to do the same thing as RAW processing afterward, but in the field, assuming you made the correct adjustment decisions.  But probably not enough people want to do that, or don't realize that the limits are, indeed, more constrained currently.


----------



## tecboy (Jul 19, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> Tecboy, I recently believed that the in camera contrast and saturation settings were as powerful as RAW software, not too long ago, if you knew what you were doing and took the time to set them.  I even had a whole big thread about it on this forum.
> 
> But was proven wrong.  The cameras SHOULD offer as strong of adjustments in camera for their jpegs as is possible with RAW conversion.  There's no technical reason why they shouldn't.  But the reality is that they just don't.  Maximum contrast adjustment does not result in nearly as pulled apart jpegs as you are allowed to do in RAW conversion software.
> 
> ...



I don't quite understand what you are saying.  Because what crockett said doesn't change the fact I have to shoot jpeg all the times and thinking that jpeg has better picture quality than raw.  That also doesn't change the fact that I have to buy a mirrorless camera because he said it is the future.  If I don't want to edit photo, maybe I'll just set my dslr to full auto and expect all my photographs to be high quality.


----------



## Tailgunner (Jul 19, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> Well, it is pretty much a fact that it takes longer to process.  It's an extra step added in on the way toward the same finished product.  Just like double knotting your shoes is pretty much objectively slower than single knotting them.  But you may still need to double knot your shoes in tricky situations to make sure they don't fall off... so it doesn't mean you should never double knot your shoes.  But it's also not "distorting the facts" to say it takes longer.



I double knot my shoes every time...do it once and never have to worry about it the rest of the day


----------



## Gavjenks (Jul 19, 2013)

tecboy said:


> I don't quite understand what you are saying.  Because what crockett said doesn't change the fact I have to shoot jpeg all the times and thinking that jpeg has better picture quality than raw.  That also doesn't change the fact that I have to buy a mirrorless camera because he said it is the future.  If I don't want to edit photo, maybe I'll just set my dslr to full auto and expect all my photographs to be high quality.



I'm saying that the camera has settings you can set for +3 contrast or -4 contrast or whatever.  And what they do is take the RAW that temporarily exists and convert it along those parameters to the jpeg that gets saved if you shoot jpeg.  So theoretically, you should be able to set whatever you want in camera and have the jpeg turn out as well as a RAW conversion, if you make the right choices.

However, the in-camera settings have arbitrary limits on them. Like -4 might be as low as it goes, but the RAW conversion software on the computer might be able to do the equivalent of -7.  There's no rhyme or reason to why the camera has built in limits, but it seems they do.

So if you want to do everything in camera like Crockett wants to do, it turns out you physically can't, even if you know what settings you want, because some settings aren't available in camera for no apparent reason.


----------



## tecboy (Jul 20, 2013)

So, some of the camera settings are the same as post processing software.  I don't know how is that going to save times from post processing.  If I want good photographs, I still have to use pp software even I shoot jpeg.


----------



## Gavjenks (Jul 20, 2013)

It would theoretically save time because you WOULDN'T use photoshop for those things, of course...

If you could set the contrast to what you want the final contrast to be, then there would be no need to adjust contrast in PP.


----------



## tecboy (Jul 20, 2013)

If you can, but I can't.  It is very hard to get the right contrast in the 2-3 inch screen especially going indoor and outdoor where lighting changes dramatically.  I still have to use photoshop or pp.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jul 20, 2013)

Yeah maybe as you said, you should stop watching these videos! LOL These are the first of his that I've watched and probably will be the last. I don't think there are absolutes, that it's necessarily the best idea to follow any one person exclusively - you get different ideas from different people and might use something from every source (or nothing from some of them). 

I can see for some people it might be an advantage to have two identical cameras and mirrorless might be an option in some cases for that reason. I switch back and forth from film to digital and from one type camera to another - it just seems to take being familiar with the cameras and taking a moment to - think! - and I can switch gears and switch cameras. Just depends on what you're photographing and how you go about it what will work best.

Back to the original point, my camera is DNG so if I have it set to shoot Raw it automatically produces a Raw and a JPEG image from that. I usually save the Raw as a JPEG if I want it in that size because the quality is usually better. I don't understand him saying the Raw isn't a photo or that it can't be printed... I print my Raw images all the time; I often open them in Photoshop and print what I photographed directly from that, other times I might need to adjust contrast or brighten it up some especially if I was in low or mixed lighting.

Either Raw or JPEG can work I think, it just depends on how you're going to use the images. I think particularly in changeable lighting it's necessary to keep metering and adjusting for the changes as you go.


----------

