Encouragement to shoot raw

[Grandpa Ron]

I am not philosophically opposed to advanced photo technology; it is just not part of what look for in and image.

As I stated before, it is the thoughts and emotions, of the image that grab my attention. Be it a wet plate, daguerreotype, film, digital or hologram. The rest is to me simply artwork.

However, I realize that to others, refining the image is as important as the image itself, otherwise they would not spend the time and effort to enhance it.

The best comparison I can make, comes from the canvas arts. The Hudson Valley school painted, in my opinion, are some of the best scenic images I have ever seen. They seem to capture your thoughts. But I have also seen simple charcoal drawing equally as captivating.

Photography is a big tent, full of all kinds or side shows. All different, all appealing to some.

 

[gk fotografie]

Some of us have been paid for helping others get better. We tend to explore possibilities an have spent considerable time researching best practices. I hope it’s not being suggested that we shouldn’t put our methods out there just because others do it differently. Persoanal preference is one thing, but if your personal preference doesn’t include the best possible images from a given photo shoot, maybe just best to stand back. On other forums I’ve had people contact me about an issue 5 years after I posted an article. My take, if you’re not interested, don’t comment. Your lack of interest shouldn’t interfere in the trasmission of “best practice” type information. This isn’t about which pant leg you put on first, this is about real actions with real consequences.

Many imply this kind of discussion is meaningless, like regardless of which pant leg you put on first, you end up with your pants on, and you can’t tell the difference. IN this case, there will be images where you can tell the difference. It does make a difference. People may be interested in how those differences are achieved and why. Even if not now, maybe years from now. It’s not all about the opinion of one person, at one particular place. It’s about disseminating good information. Whether or not any one individual cares to make use of it is up to them. If you are philosophically opposed to advanced technique and knowledge, why even enter the thread? It’s clearly not for you, but yet, here you are.
SOOC JPEG has a couple of advantges. The camera makes all the decisions for you, saving time and effort. Also it creates smaller file sizes

It also has some disadvantages, the camera decides how your image will be processed, it may not be to your liking. It throws away 1000s of bits ot data. You can’t reverse the decsions programmed into it by the guy who wrote the JPEG engine. Once you’ve committed to jepg, you’ve committed to using a general solution, that is best for the average shooter, who is incapble of making those desions on his own, or chooses to let somene else do the work. No attempt to customize can be implementd with all the data the camera captured.

SO for some it comes down to one saying “my images aren’t different enough from what the jpeg engine is design to do well, to make it worth my while to use RAW. For others of us, we’ve learned, we shoot in ways the average camera owning person probably can’t even imagine, things like maxing out on different angles, paying attention to the background, building tonal contrast and colour contrast into our images, highlighting with natrural suns spots and shade, so many more advanced techniques than just snapping a snapshot. The more care you take in your creatiing your iamges, the more you’ll be determined to get the best out of each frame. And it doesn’t even take that much work. I often process 50 images in an hour, just selecting the ones that are worth my time and effort to work further on. Culling the iamges would probably take that long even if I shot in jpeg. I find in post processing, there is certain spot, working the slider bars, where the image really pops. That’s my goal. If cranking out images as quickly and easily as possible without having to consider if it’s the best it could be is your goal, then ya, that’s an opinion.

I hate to see the slackers trying to influence people who are more serious about their photography. I would have no problem with a thread entitled why to use jpeg for those less inclined to value optimum processing. I could even write it. I would never consider jumping into that thread saying “I only shoot raw.”

Jpeg images are “good enough” for some. Some raws with a half hour of post processing can be spectacular. For some of us, saving a few minutes but missing out on the spectacular in some cases would be heart breaking. Those are the ones we discuss advanced techique with. Even if 90% of the world thinks jpegs are good enough.

Using RAW is a technique for keeners. The ambivalent need not apply.

"Easiest image capture possible “ and "best result possible” are two completely different and diametrically opposed philosophies, with little in common. It’s best they don’t interject in each others threads.

How tiring this all is, a thread from 2023 and last time OP has been on this forum is October 2024, my idea: go take some nice pictures and enjoy your old age instead of trying to prove again and again how good you are and how right you are, it's starting to get pretty annoying in just the few weeks you've been back on this forum. I'll press the ignore botton for "21 limited", because I've seen enough of you and I think it's not a bad idea for others to do the same thing.

 

[AlanKlein]

The image you're viewing on the back screen is the "camera generated" JPEG (including files saved as RAW) which generally includes all the proprietary algorithms of the manufacturer. Even the histogram is not representative of the RAW file but of the JPEG. This is where experience comes in for me. By judging the JPEG image presented, AND the histogram it gives me a best guess of the RAW file. I know from experience that I can ETTR until the blinkies start, maybe even bump up a little on the right and the whites will not be blown in the RAW, giving me a full data file to work with.

How do you know that ETTR is really necessary? Especially today with EV ranges in cameras so wide?

 

[AlanKlein]

Years ago, most everyone who shot slides shot SOOC with no subsequent modifications, even harder to do than jpegs today, never mind Raw. Somehow, we managed to get great photographs despite choked-up shadows, small EV ranges, and high contrast.

 

[smoke665]

How do you know that ETTR is really necessary? Especially today with EV ranges in cameras so wide?

Because I know that if I ETTR to the last point before blowing the whites I have the fullest possible data file for the exposure including shadow details. While it's possible to boost exposure post, doing also boosts any noise in the image.

 

[21limited]

And why, do you think when we work more on our images, if we aren’t working to improve the emotional reactions to the work?

it is just not part of what look for in and image.

If you have to look for it in the image, it’s failed.

Why do you think the ability to cause an emotional reaction is a function of straight off the camera jpeg?

My daughter in law used to do line art, if you think that’s that the equivalnet of SOOC jpgs that ’s a huge errror. SHe was amazing, But she had a talent others don’t.

I’d be interested to see any images that deomstrate why you think SOOC image have the same effect as those manipulated to be closer to the way humans actually experience things.

I seriosuly think I need some posted examples just to help me understand what you’re saying. My position is informed by years of producing images for sale. That is emotional impact driven. People don’t buy what has no emotional appeal to them. If I could sell straight off the camera jpeg images, my life would have been so much simpler. Not one of my craft show buddies had emotionally uninvolving images and all were highly eidted.

This notion that SOOC jpegs can have the same emotional impact as edited work would make you wonder, why does every professional edit and process?

Let’s call a spade a spade. You’re willing to accept un-impactful work, to avoid learning to use processing skills that would increase the emotional impact of some of your images.. I have no issue with just wanting simplicity and staying away from editing, but trying to and define it as emotionally limiting, with SOOC as the best avenue for emotional impact. That’s self delusion.

There are reasons for not engaging in post.
You don’t have time.
You don’t have talent.
You don’t know what effect editing photos can have, and don’t want to take the time to find out.
Or you don’t have motivation.

Lets stick to those, and not get into lines of thought that are more like excuses than reasons.

However, I realize that to others, refining the image is as important as the image itself, otherwise they would not spend the time and effort to enhance it.

I know or have discussed photgrpahy with hundreds of people and taught thousands. I don’t know even one that fits that description. Exactly who are you talking about? Everyone I know who post processes is trying to create the same emotions in the viewer, they felt standing in front of the scene. Every SOOC person, I’ve ever met, just doesn’t care about others. They were there, for themselves it reminds them of the original experience, because they were there. They already have an established emotional repsonse to the scene. They just need to trigger it. For other viewers they weren’t there. The image itself has to recreate the response. There’s. nothing wrong with only doing it for yourself… but let’s not make it sound like you’re some kind of better person who cares more about emotion, that’s just bogus.

 

[Ysarex]

Years ago, most everyone who shot slides shot SOOC with no subsequent modifications, even harder to do than jpegs today, never mind Raw. Somehow, we managed to get great photographs despite choked-up shadows, small EV ranges, and high contrast.

We managed to get far fewer great photos with transparency film and I always carried B&W along as well knowing that what I couldn't possibly photograph with the transparency film I might be able to manage in the darkroom. Now I photograph whatever I want including lots and lots of photos both impossible with transparency film or camera JPEGs.

 

[21limited]

Because I know that if I ETTR to the last point before blowing the whites I have the fullest possible data file for the exposure including shadow details. While it's possible to boost exposure post, doing also boosts any noise in the image.

Contrast ratios can be as high as 20 EV, My K-1 one the best for DR, can capture at best 14 EV as can any camera using that Sony sensor, like Nikons of the same era.

SO think of it as kind of slider bar. A you slide the bar to the right, you get more detail in the higlights, but less in the shadows. If you slide to the left, you get more detail in the shadows. In images like the one below, the sky is blown out, because the details in the shadows are what’s important.
2021-10-01-Duchesney-falls-bridge by Norm Head, on Flickr

I have many, many images like this, where even with the DR of my cameras, I had to blow out the sky to have detail in the shadows. ETTR works fine, until it does not. Sometime what’s in the shadows is what makes the image. I expose to the left more than I expose to the right, but it’s an image by image evaluation.

I also have many images where exposing the sky properly is what you want, and shadow detail is much less important. So you expose more to the right, but not so much you lose the colour in the clouds. And I want tha sun to be an orange ball, not a blown out white, so even then I may not go full out ETTR. To far right and you lose the colour.
2024-11-10-Alsace-Sunrise-1 by Norm Head, on Flickr
Sometimes you can’t have it all. There’s no “one size fits all" formula.

 

[Grandpa Ron]

Aah yes, the day of shooting slides. I bought my first TLR in high school in the 1960's. I bought the 127 format, so I could shoot "Super Slide" that were twice the size of a 35mm transparency but still fit in the 35 mm projector. I lived on Ektachrome and have hundreds of slides tucked away. Post processing was simple. Good a slide, good slide, bad slide, toss it. The ultimate SOOC.

12 shots to the roll, drug store development, makes one a bit choosy about your shot, but curious if you chose the right one. Digital is light years ahead of that, you can choose your 10 best angles for the shot. Select the best three and vacillate between them to select best of the best.

But digital has brought with it the ease of post processing and the impulse to tweak small corrections in Jpeg, or for some the enjoyment of turning the image into a work of art in Raw.

When I look at the stream above, the woods, the rocks, the water, the bridge etc. It is a great photograph, absolutely no doubt about that. But it is not real looking. The intensity, richness of the color, and contrast, instantly tell me, the real-life image, in even the best sunlight does not look that good.

Those features simply pop out at me as overdone. I am sure that my, good slide, good slide, bad slide habit has taught me to recognize my personal preferences. I am also sure the photograph to would sell in a heartbeat and be proudly displayed.

As an aside. The reason that some posts are resurrected, is because they are interesting and display diverse opinions of others.

 

[smoke665]

have many, many images like this, where even with the DR of my cameras, I had to blow out the sky to have detail in the shadows. ETTR works fine, until it does not. Sometime what’s in the shadows is what makes the image. I expose to the left more than I expose to the right, but it’s an image by image evaluation.

I think you misunderstood my statement. On my K1MII, from experience I know with certainty that I can ETTR till the blinkies start, the histogram just starts up the right side and the whites will be sitting at a perfect 255.255.255 in the RAW file, this gives me the most detail and least random noise in the shadows for the exposure.

 

[Ysarex]

Aah yes, the day of shooting slides. I bought my first TLR in high school in the 1960's. I bought the 127 format, so I could shoot "Super Slide" that were twice the size of a 35mm transparency but still fit in the 35 mm projector. I lived on Ektachrome and have hundreds of slides tucked away. Post processing was simple. Good a slide, good slide, bad slide, toss it. The ultimate SOOC.

12 shots to the roll, drug store development, makes one a bit choosy about your shot, but curious if you chose the right one. Digital is light years ahead of that, you can choose your 10 best angles for the shot. Select the best three and vacillate between them to select best of the best.

But digital has brought with it the ease of post processing and the impulse to tweak small corrections in Jpeg, or for some the enjoyment of turning the image into a work of art in Raw.

When I look at the stream above, the woods, the rocks, the water, the bridge etc. It is a great photograph, absolutely no doubt about that. But it is not real looking. The intensity, richness of the color, and contrast, instantly tell me, the real-life image, in even the best sunlight does not look that good.

You're right that image isn't true to life, faithful to what was actually seen and actually there. But nobody holds a gun to anyone's head and makes them use post processing software to generate unrealistic looking images. You want the image to be faithful to what was seen? Then for heaven's sake don't shoot film. Film never could get us there. You mentioned Ektachrome. The pro version of Ektachrome 100 (shipped refrigerated and exposed under controlled lighting) got us as close as possible back in the day, I used to use it for product photos in the studio. That was not the film you bought in 127 rolls which, true to life, it was not. Back then most of us shot Kodachrome because it was even less true to life and we liked that; "Makes you think all the world's a sunny day, oh yeah... So mama don't take my Kodachrome away"

And if you want the image to be faithful to what was seen don't shoot camera JPEGs. They're deliberately engineered to be unfaithful to what was seen. All the camera manufacturers work hard to have their camera's JPEG processing software produce pleasing photos as opposed to true to life photos. I'm partial to my Fuji cameras but I would never use their camera JPEGs. Fuji cameras are well-known for their JPEGs and their film simulations. You can't take a JPEG with a Fuji camera without selecting a film simulation. The classic chrome simulation is a favorite. It produces sky colors that never actually occur on the planet earth. I guess that's why it's so popular, who wants reality right -- camera JPEGs are a way to avoid reality.

But if you really do want your image to be faithful to what you saw, you now have an option with modern digital cameras to let you do that. Save and process a raw file and you can avoid the false colors and tonal limitations of film and the false colors and tone limitations of camera JPEGs. Here's an example:

That's the main business street in my neighborhood -- I was out for a walk. My neighborhood is called The Hill because one more block behind my and you'd be in the park that's the high point in the city, we can see the Arch from the top of the hill. That photo is true to life and could not have been taken with transparency film or a digital camera JPEG. If you look at the lighting in the photo you should understand why. Shoot raw and process the image to be what you want. And if what you want is a realistic image true to what you saw then that's the best way to get it.

Those features simply pop out at me as overdone. I am sure that my, good slide, good slide, bad slide habit has taught me to recognize my personal preferences. I am also sure the photograph to would sell in a heartbeat and be proudly displayed.

As an aside. The reason that some posts are resurrected, is because they are interesting and display diverse opinions of others.

 

[21limited]

I think you misunderstood my statement. On my K1MII, from experience I know with certainty that I can ETTR till the blinkies start, the histogram just starts up the right side and the whites will be sitting at a perfect 255.255.255 in the RAW file, this gives me the most detail and least random noise in the shadows for the exposure.

I beg to differ, and in the absence of example photos, I have nothing to even investigate. 100 ISO is practically noise free, and modern noise reduction software is very good. You have problems I don’t experience.

 

[Ysarex]

I beg to differ, and in the absence of example photos, I have nothing to even investigate. 100 ISO is practically noise free, and modern noise reduction software is very good. You have problems I don’t experience.

He doesn't have any problems. There is no down side to using the full capacity of a sensor. As long as you don't clip critical highlights more exposure increases SNR and DR and improves IQ. If you don't use the full capacity of the sensor you get lower SNR and DR with no benefit. So why do that? You don't care to do the best job possible? Why not? In the deepest shadows base ISO is not noise free and if you intend to lift those shadows then more exposure is a real benefit. However good noise filtering software is, it all takes an edge off and if you can avoid using it you keep that edge and better IQ.

 

[21limited]

He doesn't have any problems.

He listed blown highlights and noise in shadows.

There is no down side to using the full capacity of a sensor.

No one argued there was a downside, what was argued is that sometimes the sensor doesn't have enough DR to record the contrast in the scene and you have to choose what to portray accurately. Sometimes it's the high end, sometimes it's the shadows. I have no idea why you put words in my mouth and the ask me why I said things I didn't say.

If you don't use the full capacity of the sensor you get lower SNR and DR with no benefit. So why do that?

I have no idea, that's why I don't recommend it. What benefit do you get if your sensor DR doesn't capture the full DR of a contrasty scene using a dogmatic approach always exposing the right, is the always best choice?

In the deepest shadows base ISO is not noise free and if you intend to lift those shadows then more exposure is a real benefit.

Exxposing for the shadows increases exposure. You let more light in, because you are exposing for a darker part of the image, eliminating noise. Some times the object is not to lift the shadows, the object is to expose so the shadows don't need to be lifted, because they are within a stop of normal exposure.

However good noise filtering software is, it all takes an edge off and if you can avoid using it you keep that edge and better IQ.

Better resolution measured in lw/ph is not automatically better IQ. AI noise reduction often improves IQ, while reducing noise, if you conseider IQ to be the emotional impact of the image. No oe has ever proved that technical specs determine IQ or even have any relationship to it. That is camera company gibberish. A few years ago, a person won a voted on Flickr prize for best in class , with a 12 MP K-x. A kit worth under $500. Thousands of people who spent more and had technically higher specs, lost to him. What that tells me is technical IQ is not the same as artistic IQ, and when people judge photos, only artistic IQ counts. Thousands voted for an image, over much technically higher spec images.

I remmeber being at a craft sale with my wife, at that time we still had a few K20D images for sale. A customer selected one of my K20D images, poor shadow detail, brutal by my current standards. At the time she was shooting a K-5. SO she went into the whole explanation about resolution, better handling of noise, more true colours, etc. "We have much better images." He put his hand up to stop her and said. "I want that one, are you going to sell it to me?" He asked us to pick them up from the framing store and hang them for him. (My wife sold him one as well, they were priced at $300 each, we gave him the two for $500.) He had a cathedral ceiling in his kitchen , a whole wall covered in photography, at least 30x12 feet. There was my technically inferior 14 MP APS-c image up there looking not at all out of place with maybe 15 other photos taken with Canons and Nikons, probably full frame images. The lesson in that?. Technical specs do not reflect superior IQ. IQ is determined by how other humans respond to the image.

Here I've given you two examples of how wrong it is to worship technical excellence in an artistic medium. You just never know what people might like. I'd suggest in many cases that while possibly reducing resolution a bit, AI noise reduction software produces more artistic images (as in enjoyable by humans.) to the point I sometimes use it on images that don't have much noise. It increases the artistic IQ, which for most human beings is all that matters. But, I do know a few photographers for whom their technically analytic mind stops them from appreciating the artistic nature of a photograph. If it's not 10,000 pixels by 6000 pixels, with no noise, purple fringing or CA, it's automatically not good enough. Bias strikes quickly in those types, and prevents them from enjoying the 95% of the excellent work of artists, because they aren't artists, they are technicians. Yet I've seen ,many photos published that had both purple fringing and CA. That's why techincains don't curate art shows. Many are incapable of seeing the artistic value of less than technically perfect images. And many of the images they prefer, are of no value to the artistic human.

 

[Ysarex]

He listed blown highlights and noise in shadows.

No. He said he avoids those by exposing the sensor to capacity.

No one argued there was a downside, what was argued is that sometimes the sensor doesn't have enough DR to record the contrast in the scene and you have to choose what to portray accurately. Sometimes it's the high end, sometimes it's the shadows. I have no idea why you put words in my mouth and the ask me why I said things I didn't say.



I have no idea, that's why I don't recommend it. What benefit do you get if your sensor DR doesn't capture the full DR of a contrasty scene using a dogmatic approach always exposing the right, is the always best choice?

With the exception of actually including the sun in the scene, a full capacity sensor exposure with a modern digital camera like your K1 will suffice to capture the DR of high contrast scenes in natural light.

This is only an APS-C sensor camera and the backlighting contrast is extremely high with the sun nearly in the scene. The sensor exposure is perfect and sufficient data was captured in a single exposure. Without including the sun in the scene, I never encounter a landscape/cityscape scene in natural light that I can't adequately capture in a single exposure if I use the full capacity of the sensor.