Luminous Landscape Forum

Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: AjantaKVS on December 07, 2007, 12:10:16 PM

Title: No need of RAW !!!
Post by: AjantaKVS on December 07, 2007, 12:10:16 PM
Recently I came across an article in a local photographic magazine (A monthly magazine called "Chaya Chandana": meaning "Beautiful Photo") written by well Known and famous pro photographer and also a three time president of a photographic club called YPS(Youth Photographic Society)and also a very good friend of mine. The contents of which distracted me a lot and created  lot of 'FUD' in me        so seeking the help and comments on this.

The translation of which is as follows:

No need to shoot at all in RAW for a common pro photographer.

Raw is meant for big commercial photographers only.

If you shoot in Jpeg you can store more images on card, since Raw will take more space it takes more load on the card.

Apart from all this,more importantly Raw is not at all required for us.

So it is better to shoot in Jpeg. In it you choose 'Fine' quality out of 'Medium', 'Large' and 'Fine', that is enough.

So, which way to go, RAW or JPEG for a common pro photographer.

I think or understand from the article that a common pro photographer means wedding and general portrait professional photographer who earns his bread and butter from photographic  assignments.

Any help and comments are greatly appreciated.

AjantaKVS
Title: No need of RAW !!!
Post by: michael on December 07, 2007, 12:15:18 PM
If in the days of film you used to take your client's images to the local drug store, have prints made there, and then watched while the kid behind the counter cut up the original negatives with a pair of scissors and thew them in the trash, by all means shoot JPG on your next commercial assignment.

Michael

Ps: With 16GB cards available at reasonable prices, is space on a card really an issue? (And just for the record, a 16GB card holds 16 thousand megabytes. Maybe in the days of 512MB cards this was a factor, but today it's meaningless).
Title: No need of RAW !!!
Post by: digitaldog on December 07, 2007, 12:37:53 PM
Quote
Any help and comments are greatly appreciated.

AjantaKVS
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158973\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Throw the article away and try to remove all the ridiculous points from your brain.
Title: No need of RAW !!!
Post by: airchinapilot on December 07, 2007, 12:47:58 PM
Quote
Ps: With 16GB cards available at reasonable prices, is space on a card really an issue? (And just for the record, a 16GB card holds 16 thousand megabytes. Maybe in the days of 512MB cards this was a factor, but today it's meaningless).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158974\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Except for those of us pro sumers who can't format larger than 8gb in camera ...  
Title: No need of RAW !!!
Post by: Sean H on December 07, 2007, 12:52:31 PM
JPEG might be fine just to check something and then delete it or for quickly emailing something. However, for a photo that you will love and cherish and want to show other people AND want to keep for a long time, use RAW. It is not hard to learn to use RAW editing software.

JPEGs degrade by the way. There are places on this  forum that mention great books to read or short courses to take that will help you easily understand RAW (trust me, it is not rocket science).


Don't be afraid of RAW, embrace it and watch your photography improve. Your friends and relatives will be jealous and then you can show off.    



Sean
Title: No need of RAW !!!
Post by: Kirk Gittings on December 07, 2007, 01:09:43 PM
Shooting JPEG is like rowing with one oar.
Title: No need of RAW !!!
Post by: Rob C on December 07, 2007, 01:21:10 PM
Quote
Shooting JPEG is like rowing with one oar.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158996\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Careful, mate, there are entire tribes rowing that way; well, Venetians, at least!

Ciao - Rob C
Title: No need of RAW !!!
Post by: digitaldog on December 07, 2007, 01:26:48 PM
Quote
Careful, mate, there are entire tribes rowing that way; well, Venetians, at least!

Ciao - Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158999\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

He may have been referring to rowing down s&^t's creek without a paddle (or just one)
Title: No need of RAW !!!
Post by: blansky on December 07, 2007, 01:28:40 PM
Quote
Recently I came across an article in a local photographic magazine (A monthly magazine called "Chaya Chandana": meaning "Beautiful Photo") written by well Known and famous pro photographer and also a three time president of a photographic club called YPS(Youth Photographic Society)and also a very good friend of mine. The contents of which distracted me a lot and created  lot of 'FUD' in me        so seeking the help and comments on this.

The translation of which is as follows:

No need to shoot at all in RAW for a common pro photographer.

Raw is meant for big commercial photographers only.

If you shoot in Jpeg you can store more images on card, since Raw will take more space it takes more load on the card.

Apart from all this,more importantly Raw is not at all required for us.

So it is better to shoot in Jpeg. In it you choose 'Fine' quality out of 'Medium', 'Large' and 'Fine', that is enough.

So, which way to go, RAW or JPEG for a common pro photographer.

I think or understand from the article that a common pro photographer means wedding and general portrait professional photographer who earns his bread and butter from photographic  assignments.

Any help and comments are greatly appreciated.

AjantaKVS
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158973\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

In photography there are amateurs, hacks, serious amateurs, semi professional hacks and professionals.

Pick the category you wish to live in and set your workflow accordingly. Many photography writers specialize in writing for the first two catagories.


Michael
Title: No need of RAW !!!
Post by: Tim Gray on December 07, 2007, 02:10:05 PM
No need for RAW - just shoot film - problem solved.
Title: No need of RAW !!!
Post by: John Sheehy on December 07, 2007, 02:19:11 PM
Quote
Except for those of us pro sumers who can't format larger than 8gb in camera ... 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158987\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

But those cameras usually have less pixels, and now, lower bit depths, so the files are generally smaller.
Title: No need of RAW !!!
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on December 07, 2007, 02:30:57 PM
Quote
Except for those of us pro sumers who can't format larger than 8gb in camera ... 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158987\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Here's a radical suggestion: Why not carry two, or even three 8GB cards?

Back in film days, many photographers actually had to stop shooting and take a couple of minutes to change a roll of film every 36 pictures (37 if you were greedy). Those with MF cameras often had to change film after only 12 shots, and LF photographers had to change film after only


ONE


shot (unless they used film packs.  
Title: No need of RAW !!!
Post by: bob mccarthy on December 07, 2007, 02:49:27 PM
Quote
LF photographers had to change film after only
ONE
shot (unless they used film packs. 




[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159032\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well actually TWO. 2 sides to a film holder

<G>

Bob
Title: No need of RAW !!!
Post by: djgarcia on December 07, 2007, 02:57:14 PM
That sounds more like an article about photography written from an accountant's POV than a photorapher's!      

It just doesn't make any sense!
Title: No need of RAW !!!
Post by: airchinapilot on December 07, 2007, 03:17:52 PM
Quote
Here's a radical suggestion: Why not carry two, or even three 8GB cards?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159032\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Oh I know. I carry typically four 2gbs. I'm just saying the 16gb card option doesn't work for everyone.
Title: No need of RAW !!!
Post by: azmike on December 07, 2007, 03:45:12 PM
In a recent topic (#20754 JPEGs or RAW) Andrew Rodney referenced a very thoughtful Adobe technical paper by Karl Lang: http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adobe.com/p...renderprint.pdf (http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/family/prophotographer/pdfs/pscs3_renderprint.pdf)

I have found the article very helpful to give to new-to-digital photographers to help them understand the pros and cons in context with their personal photographic goals.

For those of us that strive to get the very best rendering out of the very best shots, there simply is no argument.  Yet there are popular websites whose authors dismiss RAW as an unnecessary complication or worse....and a lot of novices believe them, and keep asking the question.

Mike Coffey
Title: No need of RAW !!!
Post by: rdonson on December 07, 2007, 03:52:29 PM
Quote
So, which way to go, RAW or JPEG for a common pro photographer.

I think or understand from the article that a common pro photographer means wedding and general portrait professional photographer who earns his bread and butter from photographic  assignments.

Any help and comments are greatly appreciated.

AjantaKVS
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158973\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You should find out if your friend also believes the earth is flat and the moon is made from green cheese.  

He's certainly missed the boat in understanding what RAW is about and that its become the standard tool of all photographers.
Title: No need of RAW !!!
Post by: Sean H on December 07, 2007, 04:51:23 PM
Quote
You should find out if your friend also believes the earth is flat and the moon is made from green cheese. 

He's certainly missed the boat in understanding what RAW is about and that its become the standard tool of all photographers.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159064\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It takes time for people to learn about this information, process it and then grapple with it in a way that is meaningful to them and their lives.

For you and I it seems obvious that RAW is the way to go and there's no looking back because it is wonderful and right and you can make non-destructive changes to the digital negative in RAW as we climb the asymptote of perfection. We all seek to improve the quality of the final image.

For people who are not immersed in the world of high-tech photography or are new to digital photography, it can seem strange, this talk about RAW, archiving or moving away from something nice and simple as JPEG that 'everybody' uses so it must be ok....Engaging in RAW probably seems daunting to some people.

When I first used film, I didn't do my own developing but eventually I would have done so, had I not come of age in the digital era. Instead I feel lucky to have access to different RAW developers and have used PhotoShop since v 2.5 (I think).

Sean
Title: No need of RAW !!!
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on December 07, 2007, 05:02:41 PM
Quote
Well actually TWO. 2 sides to a film holder

<G>

Bob
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159039\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I count that as a film change, because you have to take the holder out and reinsert it the other side out. Then again, there's all the extra work of pulling out the dark slide, too.  
Title: No need of RAW !!!
Post by: fike on December 07, 2007, 05:04:54 PM
okay, now my $0.02.

I know some fairly serious photographers who still beleive in the universal reality of what is captured by a camera.  They don't want to grapple with the fact that the camera sees a different reality than the eye does.  So, they see the out-of-camera jpeg as the truthful negative. For them, to spend time processing their images in raw would mean admitting that there is interpretation on the part of the photographer on how the image is finally processed and presented.

Anyone who has spent any time in a darkroom knows that there are a great many choices that the photographer makes to decide what the final product looks like.  

Shoot jpeg and let the engineers at Canon (or nikon or olympus, or sony) process your image into a jpeg and make the choices about what you saw.  

Shooting in jpeg lets you decide what the best (or most honest).
Title: No need of RAW !!!
Post by: digitaldog on December 07, 2007, 06:11:19 PM
Quote
okay, now my $0.02.

I know some fairly serious photographers who still beleive in the universal reality of what is captured by a camera.  They don't want to grapple with the fact that the camera sees a different reality than the eye does.  So, they see the out-of-camera jpeg as the truthful negative.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=159091\")

Its neither truthful nor a negative. Its scene referred, Grayscale data.

[a href=\"http://www.color.org/icc_white_paper_20_digital_photography_color_management_basics.pdf]http://www.color.org/icc_white_paper_20_di...ment_basics.pdf[/url]

Which is truthful, the scene captured with Kodachrome, Ektachrome or Velvia? None.
Title: No need of RAW !!!
Post by: Don Libby on December 07, 2007, 06:31:59 PM
Thinking you can capture “the” image without using RAW is like shooting with the lens cap on.    

To follow up on what Michael said, I use a 16BG SanDisk card in my P30+ and get 331 images – way more than enough!
Title: No need of RAW !!!
Post by: jjj on December 07, 2007, 06:48:22 PM
Quote
If in the days of film you used to take your client's images to the local drug store, have prints made there, and then watched while the kid behind the counter cut up the original negatives with a pair of scissors and thew them in the trash, by all means shoot JPG on your next commercial assignment.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158974\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
When asked why use RAW, that's exactly how I describe how JPEGs relate to RAW and I also add with RAW you also get to redevelop the film again and again and again and.......

Though I always shoot RAW + JPEG, so I don't have to waste time converting all the RAWs to JPEG for a client who is not technical and wants a rough idea of the images for culling.
Title: No need of RAW !!!
Post by: Wayne Fox on December 07, 2007, 06:49:41 PM
deja vu ....

Didn't we just have a 50 post thread on this a couple of weeks ago?
Title: No need of RAW !!!
Post by: jjj on December 07, 2007, 06:54:02 PM
Quote
JPEGs degrade by the way. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158991\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Is that like milk, which goes off?
Title: No need of RAW !!!
Post by: Guillermo Luijk on December 07, 2007, 07:04:48 PM
Quote
deja vu ....

Didn't we just have a 50 post thread on this a couple of weeks ago?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159118\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I wonder if there is some week in which the "RAW vs JPEG" topic could generate less than 50 different threads in all photography forums around the world.

Digital photography is a baby, still getting subscribers who cannot differentiate. Maybe in the near future a stationary state is reached where finally most people feel comfortable with the idea that RAW is best for most applications, so we don't waste more time in this discusion.
Title: No need of RAW !!!
Post by: djgarcia on December 07, 2007, 07:11:39 PM
Whatever happened to "the right tool for the job at hand"??? Why does everything degenerate to "this is the right answer no matter what the question is"??

People must really be bored with what they're doing!  
Title: No need of RAW !!!
Post by: fike on December 07, 2007, 07:37:33 PM
Quote
Its neither truthful nor a negative. Its scene referred, Grayscale data.

http://www.color.org/icc_white_paper_20_di...ment_basics.pdf (http://www.color.org/icc_white_paper_20_digital_photography_color_management_basics.pdf)

Which is truthful, the scene captured with Kodachrome, Ektachrome or Velvia? None.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159107\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That is my point, exactly.
Title: No need of RAW !!!
Post by: Paul Kerfoot on December 07, 2007, 07:47:11 PM
Quote
Recently I came across an article in a local photographic magazine (A monthly magazine called "Chaya Chandana": meaning "Beautiful Photo") written by well Known and famous pro photographer and also a three time president of a photographic club called YPS(Youth Photographic Society)and also a very good friend of mine. The contents of which distracted me a lot and created  lot of 'FUD' in me        so seeking the help and comments on this.

The translation of which is as follows:

No need to shoot at all in RAW for a common pro photographer.

Raw is meant for big commercial photographers only.

If you shoot in Jpeg you can store more images on card, since Raw will take more space it takes more load on the card.

Apart from all this,more importantly Raw is not at all required for us.

So it is better to shoot in Jpeg. In it you choose 'Fine' quality out of 'Medium', 'Large' and 'Fine', that is enough.

So, which way to go, RAW or JPEG for a common pro photographer.

I think or understand from the article that a common pro photographer means wedding and general portrait professional photographer who earns his bread and butter from photographic  assignments.

Any help and comments are greatly appreciated.

AjantaKVS
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158973\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Title: No need of RAW !!!
Post by: Paul Kerfoot on December 07, 2007, 07:55:04 PM
The JPEG has a place but if you shoot JPEG exclusively you forfit much of the information your sensor is capable of gathering.  Have you not wasted your money on a top quality body if you shoot JPEG exclusively.

Paul Kerfoot
Title: No need of RAW !!!
Post by: Hank on December 07, 2007, 07:58:24 PM
"No need of RAW"

I love flat statements in a round world.........
Title: No need of RAW !!!
Post by: Don Libby on December 07, 2007, 08:25:22 PM
Quote
No need to shoot at all in RAW for a common pro photographer.


[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158973\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Gee I'm glad I'm not a common pro photographer  
Title: No need of RAW !!!
Post by: djgarcia on December 07, 2007, 09:09:39 PM
I wonder how much a "JPEG-less" 1Ds III would cost, without all those JPEG-related functions I will never use ... seems like 80% of all menus and super-duper functionality are related to the customization of the in-camera JPEGs.

I just look at all those (for me) wasted buttons and functions and pine for one lone mirror-lock-up button and maybe 3 fully customizable "instant configuration" buttons ...
Title: No need of RAW !!!
Post by: Graeme Nattress on December 08, 2007, 09:07:04 AM
I'd certainly pay less for a camera that doesn't do JPEG :-)

Graeme
Title: No need of RAW !!!
Post by: jjj on December 08, 2007, 11:48:56 AM
Quote
I wonder how much a "JPEG-less" 1Ds III would cost, without all those JPEG-related functions I will never use ... seems like 80% of all menus and super-duper functionality are related to the customization of the in-camera JPEGs.

I just look at all those (for me) wasted buttons and functions and pine for one lone mirror-lock-up button and maybe 3 fully customizable "instant configuration" buttons ...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159165\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If you eliminate all the features that most people never use, you'd be left with a shutter button!
Everyone uses a diferent subset of tools, that work for them and their needs.

Besides the JPEG customisation also relates to how Cannon DPP develops the RAW I believe, so it can be very handy for RAW too.
Title: No need of RAW !!!
Post by: JessicaLuchesi on December 08, 2007, 12:37:30 PM
WOW, What a GREAT idea! Why didn't I think of that?

Honestly, photojournalists tend to shoot JPEG, because they just want and need to register information. Space, speed, that sometimes matter more than the advantages of RAW, even more when the target media doesn't need 300dpi quality. Take a 40D for example. A photojournalist covering a basketball game, action is going on for over 30 nervewrecking seconds, of the playoffs. You shoot RAW, on those 30s, on the high speed drive mode, it means your buffer will fill up after some 25 shots, and you still have 15 seconds of game you may miss a decisive moment. Shoot JPEG, you may have 90 shots on the buffer. Since this isn't a photo you want to photoshop, you won't do much twitching, it's not for HUGE prints, you just want to get the color temperature right, by all means, there's no reason NOT to shoot JPEG ( as long as you know WHY and you know WHAT you're doing... but again, if you're shooting NBA playoffs, odds are you DO ).

I surelly wouldn't "need" for the small neighborhood magazines I work for shooting food, to shoot in RAW, since they ask me to give them high-res JPEGs. BUT, I shoot in RAW for myself. And convert them into Digital Negatives, also for the sake of my own needs, rather than those of the client.

If you shoot mostly white background, cutout images for online catalogues, that you won't need to do much conversion work afterwards, and you want fast processing to deliver to the client, yeah, shoot JPEG.

But still, I shoot RAW. First, my clients never get the RAW files, meaning I can keep them as negatives, and anytime, prove I shot those photos, as I'm the only one to have the original RAW files. As if size was an issue these days. The problem is that if you shoot first, think later about what you want, you'll eventually kill 3 16Gb cards, regardless of the camera you're using. You'll end up, after a fashion photoshoot, with 6000 photos, to select 6 from those, to send to the magazine. If you compose, think on what you want first, the first thing you'll notice, is that you'll hardly get to 200 photos on every change of clothes... I try to limit to 72. When I shoot food, I shoot even less, I usually take 8 stills to 20 still in a single dish. Because I think first, I select first, I compose before I click, and sometimes, review on the notebook to see if I got it right.

So, all in all... I'm sure any experienced pro photographer will know when to shoot JPEG, when to shoot RAW. In my case, I think the distinct advantages of RAW over JPEG are worth keeping and working with file sizes 3 to 4 times bigger, as converting my RAW files into DNGs. Because, since we're talking files...

In 20 years, I'm pretty sure Adobe will continue it's support to the DNG file format, or will provide us with tools on converting from DNG into a new standard. Since we also have to move our files from old backup formats into newer ones ( from ZIP to CD, from CD into DVD... possibly from DVD into Solid State HDs or BluRay or some other format.... ), not a big deal. Can I be sure Adobe will still support the first RAW CRW Canon format's in 20 years? Will my first photos with a 300D be still readable on the native RAW format, or only the DNG ones will survive?

Sometimes some wild advocate will buzz around some wild idea on his strong opinions about something. Well, either I'm wasting time and disk space that costs less every day of the year.... or I'm now a Big Shot Photographer and I don't realize that  
Title: No need of RAW !!!
Post by: JessicaLuchesi on December 08, 2007, 12:47:38 PM
Quote
I wonder how much a "JPEG-less" 1Ds III would cost, without all those JPEG-related functions I will never use ... seems like 80% of all menus and super-duper functionality are related to the customization of the in-camera JPEGs.

I just look at all those (for me) wasted buttons and functions and pine for one lone mirror-lock-up button and maybe 3 fully customizable "instant configuration" buttons ...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159165\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

RAW + JPEG is useful at times
Title: No need of RAW !!!
Post by: djgarcia on December 08, 2007, 01:05:33 PM
Quote
RAW + JPEG is useful at times
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159262\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Of course I realize everybody works differently and has different goals, hence the "for me". Just taking a wishful perspective, is all. I do wish we could customize some of those JPEG-related buttons to do something else.

Better yet would be to have dual operational modes: JPEG & JPEG-lesser configurations. There's a worthwhile and marketable (?!) UI challenge I throw at Canon .
Title: No need of RAW !!!
Post by: jjj on December 08, 2007, 04:36:53 PM
Quote
......So, all in all... I'm sure any experienced pro photographer will know when to shoot JPEG, when to shoot RAW. In my case, I think the distinct advantages of RAW over JPEG are worth keeping and working with file sizes 3 to 4 times bigger, as converting my RAW files into DNGs.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159255\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'd be careful - don't you know that admitting to shooting JPEGs, or worse advocating their usuage on LL is tantamount to heresy according to the pixel peepers that post on here? You are liable to be bludgeoned to death with a wealth of detailed technical analysis, that proves beyond doubt, that JPEGs are actually the tool of the Devil.  
Title: No need of RAW !!!
Post by: JessicaLuchesi on December 09, 2007, 08:55:43 AM
Quote
I'd be careful - don't you know that admitting to shooting JPEGs, or worse advocating their usuage on LL is tantamount to heresy according to the pixel peepers that post on here? You are liable to be bludgeoned to death with a wealth of detailed technical analysis, that proves beyond doubt, that JPEGs are actually the tool of the Devil. 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159318\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hey, I shoot RAW. But everyone wears a different shoe size  

All I mean is, I get very suspicious of a pro photographer that claims that very few pro photographers need or should use RAW files. In my experience, only those two lines of work I mentioned could do without RAW, or are impaired by handling RAW files. Sometimes we just get locked into thinking that if our workflow is A, why would anyone need a more complex, or less complex workflow? Some newspapers ask you to shoot RAW ( I shot for a newspaper once, was "graciously required" to surrender my raw files... unselected... in DVD by the end of the day... as if it was film, and I was simply giving away my rolls for them to develop and scan ), some others, you go on uploading JPEGs as the event goes on, to an FTP server, to be selected and processed by someone else, and used on the fly. Hence, Medium Size JPEGs, hence, sRAW ( which is useless to me, why would I NOT shoot a photo in full quality, ISO 100 at all times ?).

Because with every single other line of work I can think of, you only benefit from working in RAW, from wedding photographers to advertisement, from fashion to food photography, from still life to portraits. Just to name one advantage, the fact ( I found out while testing my 40D ), CS3 will let you "develop" your JPEG photos on Camera Raw, and give you the illusion it will work just like a RAW file. But after you complete a development process on a photo, if you change your mind, or think you twitched the curves a bit too much, you can't re-open it on Camera Raw, and alter those settings, taking the settings you did as a basis. You lost your original file, it won't store by default the  "untouched" version of the file, it won't store the changes you do as changes over an original file, but rather, render the changes and that's it, you don't have an incremental process, but rather, a destructive one. Maybe CS3 can store it on a separate file, I don't know. But honestly, "raw files takes too much space" isn't an argument you'd use in a professional capacity. Or at least, any real professional photographers I know of. Instead, I rather see pros sometimes getting into debts ( my case for example ) to be always the possible one step ahead of anything that can limit or impair your working process.

Ignoring different people have different needs, is a trap, even if it's a natural one, because we judge based on our experience, and try to look at a problem from our exclusive perspective. And maybe, the guy who wrote that article, is someone whose needs are fulfilled by JPEGs... and he's not acknowledging that, well, it's HIS needs and HIS workflow. It's misleading to simply assume that nobody needs to have a workflow and requirements unlike his own  

What I think people should keep in mind is that nothing replaces personal experience in this profession ( and I speak in a professional capacity... if you're in it as a hobbist, please, it's your hobby, you have the extra freedom we don't, of doing it just for fun, and hence, do things your way ) and having that in mind, do what works for you. I just feel we should take some "hard facts" with a spoon of sugar, and suspicious of people who instead of making suggestions or sharing experiences, they try casting rules that may influence some people.
Title: No need of RAW !!!
Post by: daethon on December 09, 2007, 09:31:18 AM
I have to agree, and will expand upon, what JessicaLuchesi said.  


I know some professional photographers (especially wedding ones) who shoot only JPEG.  And this is their rationale.  If you shoot RAW you have to take the time to process each of the images.  

It isn't about space, its about the time it takes to process the image afterwards.  This tends to lead to substandard wedding photography.  


I used to shoot completely in JPEG, until one day I gave RAW a try, and I've never gone back.  Whether it is action photography, or portraits.  Yes, buffering can be a problem, but that then becomes a function of the photographer.  You have to learn to anticipate the action shot, and instead of trying to take 80 shots to get the one that fits, you have to limit down to 20.  


Wedding photographers though, have really no excuse.  It is part of the job, you are providing a service that should be enjoyed for the rest of their lives, or until the divorce...so you should invest the few hours it'll take to process those photographs after wise, it is why you are paid.
Title: No need of RAW !!!
Post by: eronald on December 09, 2007, 09:53:00 AM
I'd like to think of Jpeg as training wheels. Let's do a case study:

Fifty year old Joe Smith, smart as a whip divorce lawyer has just bought himself a Canon 1DIII that he will employ to capture his 15 year old at football practice.

- If Joe shoots Jpeg straight to iPhoto he will get beautiful images on the screen, and they'll show well on the web, and print good too thanks to the miracle of one-size fits all sRGB.

- If Joe tries to play around with the Raw files, he'll just get stuck on screen after screen of Raw software, his images will then look different in every browser due to him probably converting by default to something like Prophoto, and as for the prints, well, I'd rather not mention what happens when a beginner goes there ...I've seen a lot of it, I expect Andrew has seen even more.

On balance, I'd say that Jpeg/sRGB are an excellent place for Joe to play around without drowning. Of course, if he played around with his camera more he'd be harming the world less with contentious divorces

Edmund
Title: No need of RAW !!!
Post by: digitaldog on December 09, 2007, 09:57:37 AM
Quote
I know some professional photographers (especially wedding ones) who shoot only JPEG.  And this is their rationale.  If you shoot RAW you have to take the time to process each of the images. 

That doesn't wash anymore, we have tools like Lightroom that if anything, provide a far faster user experience in handling Raws than having to deal with pre-existing rendered JPEGs through out the workflow. A few years ago, maybe that was a good excuse, not any more.

Dennis Reggie doesn't shot JPEG, he shoots Raw and a few weddings too.
Title: No need of RAW !!!
Post by: daethon on December 09, 2007, 11:24:07 AM
Quote
That doesn't wash anymore, we have tools like Lightroom that if anything, provide a far faster user experience in handling Raws than having to deal with pre-existing rendered JPEGs through out the workflow. A few years ago, maybe that was a good excuse, not any more.

Dennis Reggie doesn't shot JPEG, he shoots Raw and a few weddings too.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159449\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I never said it was a good excuse.  I think it is deplorable and downright lazy.
Title: No need of RAW !!!
Post by: sjstremb on December 09, 2007, 03:50:14 PM
Well there have been plenty of comments, so I will not pile on too high. I teach digital at a university photo program and this is how I present it. Yes, RAW is a little like a negative, and you can do much more with it than you can than from a jpg, not to mention a jpg is basicly a 8 bit file and tiff or photoshop at 16 bit.

I have always been told that the jpg format is a compression format that does indeed degrade the image each time you open and close it. It is fine for quick work or work for the www, but for fine art printing or if you intend to re-sample the image, you really need to work from a RAW file that is then converted to a TIFF or photoshop file.

It does come down to image quality and what your standards of quality are.
Title: No need of RAW !!!
Post by: djgarcia on December 09, 2007, 04:13:44 PM
Quote
I never said it was a good excuse.  I think it is deplorable and downright lazy.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159468\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Isn't this a hasty generalization? Some may do it out of laziness, but others may do it out of necessity or just from their basic product approach. If one person spends 12 hours a day creating 12 meticulously perfect images from RAW files for a client, and another one 12 hours creating a 1200 nice-image album, who's lazy? Neither I'd say. Their just selling different product for a probably different market.

In the time Alain Briot spends crafting one meticulously beautiful, gorgeous landscape, I spew out several dozen that make my mother think I'm a photographic genious       ...  OK, this isn't a good example because we're both using raw files, but you get the picture. Neither of us is lazy, we just have different markets - Alain sells to a knowledgeable and picky audience, and I'm trying to entertain my 84-year old mom .
Title: No need of RAW !!!
Post by: JessicaLuchesi on December 09, 2007, 05:12:55 PM
Quote
Fifty year old Joe Smith, smart as a whip divorce lawyer has just bought himself a Canon 1DIII that he will employ to capture his 15 year old at football practice.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159447\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ok, now I feel bad... I work hard as a photographer a whole year saving, and the best I could do was a 40D ( which I'm in love with, don't get me wrong )... and you guys in the US get 1D's for shooting your family?

I think I'm in the wrong country, LOL  
Title: No need of RAW !!!
Post by: JessicaLuchesi on December 09, 2007, 05:29:42 PM
Quote
I never said it was a good excuse.  I think it is deplorable and downright lazy.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159468\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

For weddings, sure. At least, for the high quality wedding photographer with a fair pricetag on his work. I've seen people doing weddings ( most ) who charge very little, just to get too many weddings a week, and they REALLY don't process, as in the past, they didn't develop their own film. They sent the bag, labeled with the processing desired, to the lab, get it all in the end, present contacts, and send contacts with selected photos back to the lab.

I've seen someone shooting film ( shocked me really, it was my brother showing me my cousin's wedding album, which I didn't manage to attend ), in the end, she had the family a whole album, with ALL images printed in small quicklab sized photos. From those, she picked the selected ones, to make larger prints. I was like "have people forgotten what a contact sheet is?"

But that's my impression, considering my own background. Maybe she learned that's how it's done, or maybe she just dislikes the contact sheet, and judging by the quality of her photos, which I believe they'd done better with handling each guest a snapshot... maybe she doesn't care.

Honestly, for cutout images ( which backdrop, for product shots to be used on the web or something ) I still shoot raw. Even if I shoot 12000 images in a day, I'll still have them in RAW and convert.

I'll simply get Camera Raw to convert them for me, while I go watch TV. Even if it takes 4 hours, it's the computer working, not me. If I don't have to select or retouch the images, it also makes not much diference ( unless the client wants to walk out of here with the CD in their hands ). But that's me, doing "one click, one product" kind of work. I know many people that, for that kind of photo, go JPEG also to cut that part of the workflow, since those are not also photos that may even go to their portfolio  And honestly, they do have a point in being lazy, all 3300 x 2200 images will be also downsized to 120 x 80 by the client... or printed in 1" x 0.6" size in magazines and catalogues
Title: No need of RAW !!!
Post by: daethon on December 09, 2007, 06:22:15 PM
Quote
Isn't this a hasty generalization? Some may do it out of laziness, but others may do it out of necessity or just from their basic product approach. If one person spends 12 hours a day creating 12 meticulously perfect images from RAW files for a client, and another one 12 hours creating a 1200 nice-image album, who's lazy? Neither I'd say. Their just selling different product for a probably different market.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159535\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


But...you are talking about two different people taking different photographs.  

I'm talking about comparing two wedding photographers.  Both spend 4 hours in the wedding shooting.  One shoots JPEGs, and may or may not (i've seen a lot that don't do this next step) remove poor images and send them all to the family for them to sort through themselves, and the other one who spends 2X the time they were at the wedding to process the images, perhaps they end up with half the images that the first one does, but they are all quality, with the worst one better than the best of the first.  


That's a case of laziness and, in my opinion, unprofessionalism...
Title: No need of RAW !!!
Post by: jjj on December 09, 2007, 08:21:39 PM
Quote
Well there have been plenty of comments, so I will not pile on too high. I teach digital at a university photo program and this is how I present it. Yes, RAW is a little like a negative, and you can do much more with it than you can than from a jpg, not to mention a jpg is basicly a 8 bit file and tiff or photoshop at 16 bit.

I have always been told that the jpg format is a compression format that does indeed degrade the image each time you open and close it. It is fine for quick work or work for the www, but for fine art printing or if you intend to re-sample the image, you really need to work from a RAW file that is then converted to a TIFF or photoshop file.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159534\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You teach digital yet you think simply opening and closing a JPEG degrades it.   That's not actually true, opening and resaving over the original is when the image starts to degrade. That may sound pedantic, but if you are teaching, one needs to be precise.
Besides whenever I've used compact camera that only had JPEG, I simply open it file and resave as a PSD, so I've never suffered any degradation of image from resaving.

As for quality - some of the most popular images in my print portfolio were shot on an IXUS II, which gave a mere 2.1MP JPEG. And I still have the perfectly undegraded original!   BTW, nobody gives a crap whether they were shot in RAW or JPEG. And Fine Art printing is not exclusively about perfect exposure, max dynamic range and zero grain, it can be any type of technical quality.  



Quote
CS3 will let you "develop" your JPEG photos on Camera Raw, and give you the illusion it will work just like a RAW file. But after you complete a development process on a photo, if you change your mind, or think you twitched the curves a bit too much, you can't re-open it on Camera Raw, and alter those settings, taking the settings you did as a basis. You lost your original file, it won't store by default the  "untouched" version of the file, it won't store the changes you do as changes over an original file, but rather, render the changes and that's it, you don't have an incremental process, but rather, a destructive one. Maybe CS3 can store it on a separate file, I don't know. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159437\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
LR, which uses ACR as its engine simply appends the files, RAW, JPEG or TIFF with metadata about the development. So you can in fact go back and rejig it again. I pretty sure ACR does exactly the same, but when I just tried enabling open JPEGs/Tiff with ACR, the JPEGS opened straight into PS, so a bit hard to test.
But on the rare occasion I am working on JPEGs before fiddlling in PS, I simply use LR to tweak it first, if need be and retweak it again as much as I want, with no degradation to original.
Title: No need of RAW !!!
Post by: digitaldog on December 09, 2007, 08:28:41 PM
Quote
first, if need be and retweak it again as much as I want, with no degradation to original.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159584\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

There's no degradation to the original, there most certainly is to the iteration! More than if you did this from a Tiff.

Its the same as if you opened the JPEG in Photoshop and applied some correction, then did a Save As command. The original is untouched yes, the new file has been built from the original, with the edit and absolutely does undergo degradation. And if you save it once again as a JPEG (which is foolish), even more so. At least save it as a Tiff.

There's only one real non destructive editing, that's when you build new virgin pixels from Raw data. That's not editing pixel, that's rendering (pixel creation). Saving an iteration isn't non destructive to the iteration. Who cares about the original, it needed an edit (or we wouldn’t be altering it in the first place).
Title: No need of RAW !!!
Post by: jjj on December 09, 2007, 10:53:35 PM
Quote
There's no degradation to the original, there most certainly is to the iteration! More than if you did this from a Tiff.
Seeing as one can always reset development to zero, there's no real issue, with degradation of original file, which was the point in question. Not whether the file has more ability to withstand degration through post processing itself. I could even be doing it to a virtual copy  and never touching the original JPEG, TIFF....
How well a JPEG compares to a 8bit Tiff [produced from the same RAW file] in post production is another thread entirely.

Besides I often process images where the shadows block or the histograms combs and the reason why -  it is that I judge if an image looks good by using my eyes, no matter if the hstogram, says yuck. So what may be poor quality to you is a quality I like, prefer even to the 'correct/best' method. I like the degradation of the image in certain types of work. Always perfectly sharp, always perfectly exposed images with no grain at all is simply boring - to my mind. Even though at times I love it.
In film terms this "one should always use RAW", mantra would be like saying anyone who used Tri-X rather than Tech Pan was an idiot, as you lost so much information by using the faster film, especially if you pushed it in a speed enhancing developer and not a best quality developer. Lovely as Tech Pan was, I also liked grain, even at the expence of detail. But seeing as I also do blurry/abstract/grainey/unsharp images, max quality is less important to me, than say the texture of the image, so I have some PS Actions that degrade, rather than 'enhance' the image. I wrote one to emulate Agfa 1000RS, as I loved the crunchy quality of that slide film.

Quote
Its the same as if you opened the JPEG in Photoshop and applied some correction, then did a Save As command. The original is untouched yes, the new file has been built from the original, with the edit and absolutely does undergo degradation. And if you save it once again as a JPEG (which is foolish), even more so. At least save it as a Tiff.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159585\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Try reading all my post, not just bits of it. If I open a JPEg I don't save it as a JPEG, I save it as a PSD. Always have done.

Quote
There's only one real non destructive editing, that's when you build new virgin pixels from Raw data. That's not editing pixel, that's rendering (pixel creation). Saving an iteration isn't non destructive to the iteration. Who cares about the original, it needed an edit (or we wouldn’t be altering it in the first place).
Uh, you 'alter' original RAW fies for example, as they are undeveloped and always need editing - unless you like unsharp, flat and undersaturated images.
If I always have my original file to work from later after editing,  I regard that as being non-desructive editing. For instance I never regarded, my PSing of my film scans as being destructive, as I always had my original scan/slide/negative to redo later. Plus I always have the untouched original layers in the PS tweaked  files too. Which from how others taught PS, it didn't seem to be the most comon way of doing things. So for those who like to flatten their PSDs, RAW editing like in Aperture or LR would seem quite revolutionary and non destructive.
It's not as if one cannot 'wreck' the look of a RAW file by poor processing, but going back to redo the RAW file when you learn a few more tricks, is no different from my revisiting my PSD files from 10years ago, now I know PS better and PS itself is better. All my original image data is still there, so that editing was not destructive as far as I was concerned. Adjustment layers and smart filters have also now made it possible to have smaller PSD files that are non-destructively edited, compared to before.
Title: No need of RAW !!!
Post by: digitaldog on December 10, 2007, 09:04:55 AM
Quote
Seeing as one can always reset development to zero, there's no real issue, with degradation of original file, which was the point in question.

Maybe its the point in question. But there's nothing new here, you could as I said, duplicated the JPEG and done edits on it OR edited till the cows come home and invoked a Save As command since Version 1 of Photoshop. FWIW, just about every other application on a computer has this functionality to allow you to edit, not save over the original and then save off an iteration. Its hardly unique or worth mentioning.

Quote
Uh, you 'alter' original RAW fies for example, as they are undeveloped and always need editing - unless you like unsharp, flat and undersaturated images.

Maybe in YOUR Raw converter. In Lightroom and CR, the Raw data is never altered. Its simply a data point to build new pixels.

Quote
For instance I never regarded, my PSing of my film scans as being destructive, as I always had my original scan/slide/negative to redo later.

If you alter the numbers in a document, there's data loss. The math is unavoidable. The film you scanned, OK, some could say its not altered (some would argue the light source has an effect but lets not go there). The scanned image undergoes data loss the second you alter an existing pixel value due to rounding errors.

Quote
It's not as if one cannot 'wreck' the look of a RAW file by poor processing

You're not wrecking the Raw, you're not altering the Raw. You're producing instructions that tell the converter to build a poor rendering.

Quote
...you learn a few more tricks, is no different from my revisiting my PSD files from 10years ago, now I know PS better and PS itself is better

The difference is, if you revisit the PSD, you alter the values, you degrade the data. Not the case with Raw. Now its not worth losing sleep over but its incorrect to equate rendering with pixel correction in terms of data loss or document degradation. Rendering is a different process than taking existing RGB values in a pixel editor and changing the values.
Title: No need of RAW !!!
Post by: Rob C on December 11, 2007, 01:09:12 PM
jjj

I am happy to agree with you that art printing/art photography does not demand a single, inflexible set of rules. If it did, I´m quite sure that I wouldn´t waste one more day at a computer trying to create something that wasn´t in front of the camera in quite the way I am trying to make it appear.

However, there are many who do think that it is all about the ultimate degree of control, in the sense of hi-fidelity to the scene, both with camera and print-making.

The important thing is that though the maximum extent of a photographer´s knowledge can never be too great, it comes down to how the photographer chooses to employ that knowledge at the time of making the picture and, possibly, afterwards too. He might choose to change his mind when he sees the first draft of his shot.

The dangerous territory shows on the radar when one says something like this: I sometimes find I´m happier with changing the picture into black and white, later, than I am with the thing as I first saw it in colour. To save the shouting, let me plead guilty! It happens to me all the time - and how much further from the one-set-of-rules idea can that be! You have to stay open all the time.

But even with that sort of psychology, I still only shoot RAW! Or film.

Cheers - Rob C
Title: No need of RAW !!!
Post by: AjantaKVS on December 12, 2007, 04:44:46 AM
Quote
I wonder how much a "JPEG-less" 1Ds III would cost, without all those JPEG-related functions I will never use ... seems like 80% of all menus and super-duper functionality are related to the customization of the in-camera JPEGs.

I just look at all those (for me) wasted buttons and functions and pine for one lone mirror-lock-up button and maybe 3 fully customizable "instant configuration" buttons ...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159165\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, let us assume the possibilty of "JPEG-less" camera as you will never use and want it.

Now we all know that all RAW files contain at least one/two in-built camera processed
jpegs embedded along with the unprocessed 'raw data and lots of meta data'.

Do you want those embedded jepgs OR not ?

If not requried,  well and good, there is no need of Jpeg processor built in to the camera.

However if you need those embedded jpegs you got have a jpeg processor in-built and it needs parameters to process and hence you got to set those parameters or at least they must be factory specified by default (in this case I think no need of all those buttons and settings ).

Please note that these embedded jpegs are different from RAW+JPEG setting.

With "RAW+ JPEG" setting I read in some blog that there will be about  in total five jpegs embedded along with raw data in the two files( taking around 10 to 12 % of raw space in the raw file)

AjantaKVS
Title: No need of RAW !!!
Post by: JessicaLuchesi on December 12, 2007, 07:23:03 AM
I guess we're getting close to having the usual pixel peeping started. I personally think the debate on workflow, data preservation ( as far as strategies to store and sort your photos for the next 50 years, not the "a few pixels on a 12 Million Pixels image are rendered to a slightly diferent color than they should originally - because I never saw a white pixel, in a white wall, while working on a JPEG image turn black ) is a great debate. Talking if, in a professional work, pixels go astray while you process your photos either as JPEG, TIFF and RAW, so, everyone should always....

The "Everyone should always" talks are really boring and pointless when talking on pro photography. Because, you should be moved more about market pressures, better techniques, best practices and your own work needs, rather than "the latest hype".

Everyone debates about the degradation of JPEG files when working on them. Nobody mentions the problems you have when you send your RAW file to a newspaper, and they print if off color, so that a green lettuce leaf turns yellow, because the editor did think he felt that was better. Or when for lack of resolution, the newspaper printer turned your 16 million beautiful 16-bit TIFF into a 3000 color image, if not Black and White with 56 shades of gray. Or you sent your photos to be printed as a book for a marriage album to a local press, and you ask "What's the color profile you're gonna use?", and the answer over the phone is "Huh?".

Anyone who makes a living out of this profession, will know why they shoot RAW or JPEG. I personally think you should shoot RAW anytime you'll have the time and moment to sit back and process your photos with a cup of coffee on your hand. Worst case scenario, if I have to hand in JPEGs 15 minutes after the shoot was done, I shoot JPEG + RAW. For the sake of preserving the "digital negative", both for ownership and longevity issues, for a (slightly) higher flexibility while post-processing the photos. And for the sake of my paranoid behavior on having the image on it's "purest" form stored. But on the other hand, magazines ask me usually for JPEGs. What am I gonna do? Walk into their offices with a sledge hammer?  

We debate a lot here, about bad practices as photographers, but sometimes, sitting on a desk, using our work, and having as much influence on the quality of our work, or even more, is the editor, who sometimes, doesn't need such higher practices. Usually, he'll care more if you managed to do a great edit on your photos, handling him just what's good to use ( instead of dumping 4000 JPEGs on his lap, for him to stop whatever he's doing and do your work ), than if a few pixels are astray on the photos you took, because you decided to use JPEG.

Unless of course, the client asks for the RAW files. That happens. And when that happens, you're not gonna use JPEG at all.
Title: No need of RAW !!!
Post by: AjantaKVS on December 12, 2007, 08:09:51 AM
Quote
Everyone debates about the degradation of JPEG files when working on them. Nobody mentions the problems you have when you send your RAW file to a newspaper, and they print if off color, so that a green lettuce leaf turns yellow, because the editor did think he felt that was better. Or when for lack of resolution, the newspaper printer turned your 16 million beautiful 16-bit TIFF into a 3000 color image, if not Black and White with 56 shades of gray. Or you sent your photos to be printed as a book for a marriage album to a local press, and you ask "What's the color profile you're gonna use?", and the answer over the phone is "Huh?".

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160063\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

RAW format is not a delivery format to the client , where as JPEG is delivery format ready to be consumed by the client.(like PDF)

I think delivering in raw format is like delivering your unprocessed exposed rolls to the client, I feel not a right  business practice (no restaurant likes to serve half baked food and then, says you do the rest and then consume).

By the way 16 bit doesn't stop at 16 million like 8bit, it goes much beyond that ( to be exact 3x2^16 colors)  am I correct here? or am I missing somethings.

AjantaKVS
Title: No need of RAW !!!
Post by: digitaldog on December 12, 2007, 09:13:23 AM
Quote
RAW format is not a delivery format to the client , where as JPEG is delivery format ready to be consumed by the client.(like PDF)

Absolutely. Its an insane thing to do. Photographers, just say not.

Quote
I think delivering in raw format is like delivering your unprocessed exposed rolls to the client, I feel not a right  business practice (no restaurant likes to serve half baked food and then, says you do the rest and then consume).

Its like shooting a roll of E6 and taking it to the pharmacist expecting to get processed film.
Title: No need of RAW !!!
Post by: JessicaLuchesi on December 12, 2007, 10:12:47 AM
Quote
RAW format is not a delivery format to the client , where as JPEG is delivery format ready to be consumed by the client.(like PDF)

I think delivering in raw format is like delivering your unprocessed exposed rolls to the client, I feel not a right  business practice (no restaurant likes to serve half baked food and then, says you do the rest and then consume).

By the way 16 bit doesn't stop at 16 million like 8bit, it goes much beyond that ( to be exact 3x2^16 colors)  am I correct here? or am I missing somethings.

AjantaKVS
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160066\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Still, I have clients who require RAW, and I have talked to photographers who were asked the same. Argument:

"I have people here, who are paid and work ONLY on processing those files the way we want"

That happened with me, with a big newspaper ( biggest in Brazil - A Folha de São Paulo ), and happened for a friend, with an Ad Agency, whose I have not the liberty of stating. But in the past, giving your rolls of film to the client to develop, here in Brazil, was also a common practice. You can complain all you want, the client required that. Meaning, your only option, is not to do the job.

Of course, you can, as an option, give out processed TIFF files. They're still gonna go straight to the RAW files. Doesn't mean I defend that position, I like to give out my finished view of what the work should be. But I must acknowledge, that there are times you simply can't.

What I did? I processed the photo the way I wanted and felt was true to my vision, printed it, and that's the version in my portfolio. If anyone asks, I'll simply state "this is how that photo should have looked like in print... "... but you have to accept, after a file leaves your hands, the publisher can do whatever they want to, unless you bind them in contract, to print EXACTLY what you handed them. They can crop, rotate, flip, mirror, alter colors, apply filters. Regardless of the file you provide your photo in.
Title: No need of RAW !!!
Post by: digitaldog on December 12, 2007, 10:20:37 AM
Quote
Still, I have clients who require RAW, and I have talked to photographers who were asked the s

Require? You mean they tell you that you have to and you tell them you will.

Where do you draw the line? Can they tell you what camera to use? Where to focus? Since when do Photographers let clients dictate how they will create an image. Oh never mind, they've bent over backwards for years, taking unreasonable demands for clients. Then when you ask them if they are part of the ASMP or APA, groups that attempt to stand up for photographers rights, they usually tell you nope.

Quote
But in the past, giving your rolls of film to the client to develop.

And here you see how Photographers let themselves get into these problems. They start by suppling the film (and lose markup AND control on the processing).

Last time I went into my favorite diner with eggs I purchased and demanded they cook me breakfast with them, they showed me the door. They know how to run a business.

But this is another debate, probably needing its own heading.
Title: No need of RAW !!!
Post by: JessicaLuchesi on December 12, 2007, 10:30:50 AM
Yes, these are all things that also don't change with a single person stepping up against clients. This is something that changes, over time, with organization. At least, considering how everything is done here in Brazil.

We do have a association for advertisement photographers. But while asking a peer ( at the time, I was a student and she was a teacher in the same school, but not my teacher ), how that association worked, because I intended to join it, her reply was simply:

"Oh, it was good back in the days of film, because you got 15% discount on shops. Now you don't, so I left".

The I asked how they did cather for legal rights, lobbying for us in the congress, providing legal support.

"Oh no, they don't do that. All they have is a lawyer who won't get in a lawsuit for you... just give you general guidelines on what to do if you're into some sort of legal problem"

So, there you go, we have an organization who won't represent you.

Talking about working class organization in Brazil usually comes to that. Things must change? For sure, but nothing like that is done overnight. And you should have the major players in the business working with you towards a single aim. At least, that's how I feel.
Title: No need of RAW !!!
Post by: jjj on December 12, 2007, 05:03:37 PM
Quote
Maybe its the point in question. But there's nothing new here, you could as I said, duplicated the JPEG and done edits on it OR edited till the cows come home and invoked a Save As command since Version 1 of Photoshop. FWIW, just about every other application on a computer has this functionality to allow you to edit, not save over the original and then save off an iteration. Its hardly unique or worth mentioning.
It's worth mentioning as people still don't do it or understand that opening a JPEG and resaving as a copy or a PSD it is not ruining the image. Just because you know about something, you think is obvious, doesn't mean everyone else does. As  very clearly evidenced by posts in this thread.

Quote
You're not wrecking the Raw, you're not altering the Raw. You're producing instructions that tell the converter to build a poor rendering.
Reading problems yet again. You may know your maths but you seem to be struggling with English comprehension. Wreck was written as  'wreck'  and 'wreck' referred to the "look of the RAW" and not the RAW file. Because you were not in fact wrecking the RAW image.

Quote
Maybe in YOUR Raw converter. In Lightroom and CR, the Raw data is never altered. Its simply a data point to build new pixels.
Once again I suggest you try reading posts more carefully and the context in which they were written, I was talking about altering the image to improve it and not about altering the pixels within the image itself. There is a difference.  BTW the word alter was written as 'alter'. See above point as to the difference. You may be able to pixel peep, but you certainly aren't so careful when it comes to parsing English.

Quote
If you alter the numbers in a document, there's data loss.
But I haven't, in the sense I was talking. I always work on a duplicate layer/file. The original is always there. Just like the original RAW file is always there.  And once you start to change how the RAW file looks, it is to all intents and purposes no different from editing a duplicate of an original, in that you can always resort to original.

Quote
The math is unavoidable. The film you scanned, OK, some could say its not altered (some would argue the light source has an effect but lets not go there). The scanned image undergoes data loss the second you alter an existing pixel value due to rounding errors.
Who in their right mind gives a crap about that. I'm producing photographs not measuring the speed of light, where such things are actually important.



Quote
The difference is, if you revisit the PSD, you alter the values, you degrade the data. Not the case with Raw. Now its not worth losing sleep over but its incorrect to equate rendering with pixel correction in terms of data loss or document degradation. Rendering is a different process than taking existing RGB values in a pixel editor and changing the values.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159667\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
As I said above I'm not changing my original, just like I'm not modifying the actual RAW data. But whether you alter levels in RAW or with a PSD adjustment layer all that is happening is the image on screen is being altered and not the actual photo underneath. I haven't touched the original pixels as such, so no degradation. And again it really doesn't matter, I tweak images to look good and don't care if there may be some rounding error at a level I cannot even detect. In fact I will at times tweak images that deliberately causes what you call degradation and so what. I think it looks nice. This is like the people who whinge about erosion of being a bad thing as it spoils the landscape, whilst completely ignoring the fact that the beautiful landscape almost invariably looks how it does - because of erosion. I love erosion in nature and I also love images that are not pixel perfect and because they are not pixel perfect.

RAW was not such a revolutionary way of working/thinking for me, it was simply an evolution of what I was already doing [I always had an untouched original] and allowed me to do essentially the same thing [even f the computer did it slightly differently], but in a more convienient manner and with more finesse as the editing tools have also improved immensely. Even so I still put all my images through PS to finish them off as RAW convertors are incapable of getting the look I want. And that not my inability to use the tool, but I use PS only techniques to achieve the image feel I want. Techniques that  apparently 'damage/degrade' the image as far as you are concerned, but to my mind, they do the opposite and improve it.
Title: No need of RAW !!!
Post by: jjj on December 12, 2007, 05:37:26 PM
As for the never giving the client your RAW files nonsense. And it's only nonsense if you say never and start being absolute about it. And is something you may expect to come from a non-professional photographer, showing their ignorance about how different photographers work.

Like some photographers never printed their own negs, some never touch Photoshop or LR. So, quite possibly it makes no difference to them if a client wants them to hand over the negs/raw files. Capturing a picture and printing/processing it are two different skills. Not all photographers have both. When I took my B+W folio around a few years back, I was asked who printed my pictures as they were quite impressed with the work. They did not even consider that I may have done them myself [I had], as it was very common for photographers to have someone else print their images. Someone like Gene Nocon was a full time printer for other photographers and was very popular as he made their work look much better.

On some shoots the photographer sets up the lights and presses the shutter, whilst the Art Director gives all the direction to the models. The camera is tethered and someone may be grading the images even before the photographer has finished the shoot and that person may be from the magazine or the Ad agency and not even the photographer's assistant. So how is that any different from handing in your RAW files? Some magazines work that way as they have a particular way of working with images to suit the magazine's house style, so if you had to process the RAW files to match that specific look anyway, does it matter if someone else does it. It's not your style anymore anyway.
If someone asked me to do a job because they liked the style of my work and asked for just the RAW files, I'd point out that the processing I give to my images is a major part of my style, so to not hire me for that would be letting me do only half a job. But if they were giving lots of money to do less work, then why turn it down?
Title: No need of RAW !!!
Post by: digitaldog on December 12, 2007, 06:34:39 PM
Quote
It's worth mentioning as people still don't do it or understand that opening a JPEG and resaving as a copy or a PSD it is not ruining the image.

The initial damage was done. Saving it now as a TIFF or PSD if you must simply reduces more damage from further compression after editing (which itself will produce damage).

Quote
Just because you know about something, you think is obvious, doesn't mean everyone else does.

How profound.

Quote
Wreck was written as  'wreck'  and 'wreck' referred to the "look of the RAW" and not the RAW file. Because you were not in fact wrecking the RAW image.

As I said, you simply produced an undesirable set of rendering instructions. You didn't wreck anything.

Quote
Once again I suggest you try reading posts more carefully and the context in which they were written, I was talking about altering the image to improve it and not about altering the pixels within the image itself.

How do you improve the image without altering the pixels?  

Quote
But I haven't, in the sense I was talking. I always work on a duplicate layer/file. The original is always there. Just like the original RAW file is always there.

You still don't get the significant difference. The iteration undergoes damage from the original data source if that source is pixels. That's not what happens with Raw rendering.

Quote
And once you start to change how the RAW file looks, it is to all intents and purposes no different from editing a duplicate of an original, in that you can always resort to original
.

You do not alter the Raw, that's the point. And there's a very big difference, the difference being Raw to render, no damage. Alter the rendered image (alter pixel values), damage. Alter pixel value, save a copy, damage to the new saved file. The original rendered image received the damage in the previous step.

Quote
Who in their right mind gives a crap about that. I'm producing photographs not measuring the speed of light, where such things are actually important.

People who want to understand that advantages of Raw rendering in terms of speed, control, flexibility and then damage.

Quote
As I said above I'm not changing my original, just like I'm not modifying the actual RAW data.

You already altered the original, did you forget about that step?

Quote
But whether you alter levels in RAW or with a PSD adjustment layer all that is happening is the image on screen is being altered and not the actual photo underneath.

It is, on the PSD if you print it, or flatten it. So yes, if all you want to do is view the image on screen, you've yet to use the instruction set that defines the adjustment layer to damage the image by altering the pixel values.

Quote
I haven't touched the original pixels as such, so no degradation.

The only way to not touch the pixels is to not edit them. Get it?

Quote
And again it really doesn't matter, I tweak images to look good and don't care if there may be some rounding error at a level I cannot even detect.


The concept of altering pixel values is something many of us have been doing for a very long time because its absolutely necessary to do. You should still be aware of your actions. If you can render an image and produce the desired color appearance, you're going to be in a lot better shape down the road with that data, then trying to alter pixels which does damage the image (and saving it as JPEG is another insult to injury). Its faster, its more flexible because you can alter the rendering instructions as often as you wish, even AFTER you quit the app (unlimited, timeless history). It means you can build multiple iterations from one data source, that saves a great deal of disk space and file management.

Quote
RAW was not such a revolutionary way of working/thinking for me

Obviously.

Quote
it was simply an evolution of what I was already doing [I always had an untouched original] and allowed me to do essentially the same thing [even f the computer did it slightly differently], but in a more convienient manner and with more finesse as the editing tools have also improved immensely.

That you believe this makes me believe you don't understand the differences between rendering and pixel correction.

Quote
Even so I still put all my images through PS to finish them off as RAW convertors are incapable of getting the look I want. And that not my inability to use the tool, but I use PS only techniques to achieve the image feel I want.

NO one is suggesting otherwise. But use the right tool for the right job. All global tone and color work can and should be done by rendering pixels. Selective editing (pixel editing) is Photoshop's bread and butter. No one is suggestion you should never alter pixels, I've done this to a few since 1990. Unfortunately, some people have been using Photoshop for so long, they see it as their only tool.

Quote
As for the never giving the client your RAW files nonsense. And it's only nonsense if you say never and start being absolute about it.

That deserves a big "Duh". Yes, you need to stand your ground and be consistent.

IT also doesn't mean the person who shot the job has to render the Raw data. I can name a heck of a lot of really well known, highly paid and talented photographers who never handle the Raw. That's NOT the same as suggesting they blindly hand off their Raws to their clients, none do. I didn't have to process my E6 film, I had a good lab to do it, but that didn't mean I had to hand off the film to my client to process either.

Quote
Like some photographers never printed their own negs, some never touch Photoshop or LR. So, quite possibly it makes no difference to them if a client wants them to hand over the negs/raw files.

Right, so they either have to process the Raw themselves or the only other alternative is to hand off the Raws to the client. Pretty lame analogy.

Quote
But if they were giving lots of money to do less work, then why turn it down?

Because the definition of a true professional is, you can't pay them to do a poor job. That's not limited to photography either.
Title: No need of RAW !!!
Post by: douglasf13 on December 12, 2007, 06:47:29 PM
Quote
I'd be careful - don't you know that admitting to shooting JPEGs, or worse advocating their usuage on LL is tantamount to heresy according to the pixel peepers that post on here? You are liable to be bludgeoned to death with a wealth of detailed technical analysis, that proves beyond doubt, that JPEGs are actually the tool of the Devil. 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159318\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Hilarious!   I actually know of at least ONE pro photographer, Lionel Deluy, who shoots primarily JPEG with his 1Ds II (I used to live next door to him.)  He shoots pics of models and celebrities that are not only in major magazines, but cover entire buildings, by the way.

I shoot RAW, but clearly either is acceptable.  
Title: No need of RAW !!!
Post by: jjj on December 12, 2007, 09:21:40 PM
Quote
...lots of innacurate and frankly irrelevent nonsense... [not a literal quote BTW!] [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160229\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Please learn to read posts properly before responding. You consistently misread, misinterpret or simply ignore what I actually write. Your ability to read English is very obviously not your best point. Though your real problem is in being so absolute and dogmatic about things, like RAW, which only shows a lack of flexibility and understanding of the real world.
What makes your arguing against me so stupid and pointless is that I've been using RAW ever since buying a digital camera and I always encourage others to do so too. But RAW is not the be all and end of of photography. You can make brilliant images without being so precious about your pixels. I have great images in my portfolio taken on an ancient 2.1M Ixus, which only produced JPEGs. I accepted and exagerated the limitations of the camera and inspite of these images being low res JPEGS in origin, they are some of the most popular images in my A3 print folio.
Tell you what, I'll keep producing imperfect pictures that people really like and you can keep your pixels perfect and unsullied. I'm even beginning to wonder if you're even a photographer as your attitude is so inflexible and absolute, which seems so anti the whole creative process.
A shame, as you are very knowledgable about some technical things, but you seem obsessively anti anything imperfect and heaven forbid someone offers an alternative viewpoint.
What amuses me most is the irony of you being a colour management expert, as you seem to see everything in Black + White!
Title: No need of RAW !!!
Post by: digitaldog on December 12, 2007, 09:39:27 PM
Quote
Please learn to read posts properly before responding. You consistently misread, misinterpret or simply ignore what I actually write.

You're entitled to that opinion even if I disagree.

Quote
Your ability to read English is very obviously not your best point. Though your real problem is in being so absolute and dogmatic about things, like RAW, which only shows a lack of flexibility and understanding of the real world.

Thanks so much for pointing that out!

Quote
What makes your arguing against me so stupid and pointless is that I've been using RAW ever since buying a digital camera and I always encourage others to do so too.

How long you've been using Raw or your recommendations is immaterial to the points you still don't get.

Quote
But RAW is not the be all and end of of photography.

No one said this was so, why do you feel you need to move away from the topic at hand and introduce such nonsensical statements.

Quote
You can make brilliant images without being so precious about your pixels.

This hasn't, nor shouldn't be a discussion about aesthetes. It's about a technical point you dismiss or fail to recognize.

Quote
I have great images in my portfolio taken on an ancient 2.1M Ixus, which only produced JPEGs

Pointless to THIS discussion. If you had a Raw and a JPEG, we could discuss apples and apples.

Quote
Tell you what, I'll keep producing imperfect pictures that people really like and you can keep your pixels perfect and unsullied.

Whatever blows your skirt up.

Quote
I'm even beginning to wonder if you're even a photographer as your attitude is so inflexible and absolute, which seems so anti the whole creative process.

I am but once again, you've gone way OT not to express a point but to camouflages any desire to stay on track about a technical dissuasion here.

Quote
A shame, as you are very knowledgable about some technical things, but you seem obsessively anti anything imperfect and heaven forbid someone offers an alternative viewpoint.
What amuses me most is the irony of you being a colour management expert, as you seem to see everything in Black + White!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160258\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Again, a lot of writing that is totally immaterial to THIS post. As such, I suspect you either 'don't get it' or don't want to. Until you can stay on topic, I'm going to have to assume both.
Title: No need of RAW !!!
Post by: Craig Lamson on December 13, 2007, 07:07:18 AM
Your thoughts on sending a client raw files is spot on, but the problem is far too many photographers, in my market at least, are now doing it.  Sad really.  I've lost three large jobs this year alone due to not releasing my raws.  My refusal caused my business to post a loss this year instead of a profit.  

The problem in my area is that a few printers have now convinced clients (mostly direct clients...not agencies) that they should be the ones to process the raw files.  I'm guessing its a way to replace that lost scanning money.  The problem with this is that a number of important post processing steps get missed, like correction of barrel or pin cushion distortion, local contrast enhancement and really good perspective correction.  And in my case it would also remove lots of the work I do to improve the images such as layering etc.  

I say no because I live by the adage that you are only as good as your last job, and I'm not about to have someone else decide how my images should look.  But it is costing me money and I wonder if I can hold out.  When I talk to other photographers in the area, the cheap guys love it.  They are taking work from photographers who produce much higher quality work and they feel good.  They don't really care who processes their files as long as a check is attached.

The trend is alarming, at least to me.
Title: No need of RAW !!!
Post by: digitaldog on December 13, 2007, 09:06:51 AM
Quote
The problem in my area is that a few printers have now convinced clients (mostly direct clients...not agencies) that they should be the ones to process the raw files.  I'm guessing its a way to replace that lost scanning money.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160318\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think its time for photographers to convince their clients THEY are far better equipped to handle the CMYK conversions and post editing, in house lose color proof etc instead of the printer.

Many of these shops can hardly make decent RGB to CMYK conversions, now they are going to process your Raws? What a joke.
Title: No need of RAW !!!
Post by: Kirk Gittings on December 13, 2007, 10:12:32 AM
Quote
I think its time for photographers to convince their clients THEY are far better equipped to handle the CMYK conversions and post editing, in house lose color proof etc instead of the printer.

Many of these shops can hardly make decent RGB to CMYK conversions, now they are going to process your Raws? What a joke.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160338\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

After a couple of years of confusion (much of which was mine), I have convinced all of my magazine clients and ad agencies that I am the best equipped to do the processing and conversions, assuming I can get a decent profile from the printer. This has become vitally important to me, because I work files a fair amount and it it is the only way I can get my imaages to look the way I want them to. When I shoot something, I am seeing on the screen what is possible through processing and post processing and the Jpeg view is oftentimes far from my final vision. Half of the creativity is in the processing.
Title: No need of RAW !!!
Post by: Craig Lamson on December 13, 2007, 08:01:30 PM
Quote
I think its time for photographers to convince their clients THEY are far better equipped to handle the CMYK conversions and post editing, in house lose color proof etc instead of the printer.

Many of these shops can hardly make decent RGB to CMYK conversions, now they are going to process your Raws? What a joke.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160338\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I have a number of clients for whom I provide the conversions and have the profles fro all of the local printers (90% of my work is printed here).  Thats how I want it to work for everyone.  Sadly there are a growing number of "peers" willing to give the farm away...these guys don't even charge the client a capture fee and give the raws at no charge.

In a market that is getting tighter ( I work for RV and Marine clients) and sales slowing, more and more of the customers are buying photography like they buy hamber...how much a pound.  It's not a good sign.
Title: No need of RAW !!!
Post by: Craig Lamson on December 13, 2007, 08:06:02 PM
Quote
After a couple of years of confusion (much of which was mine), I have convinced all of my magazine clients and ad agencies that I am the best equipped to do the processing and conversions, assuming I can get a decent profile from the printer. This has become vitally important to me, because I work files a fair amount and it it is the only way I can get my imaages to look the way I want them to. When I shoot something, I am seeing on the screen what is possible through processing and post processing and the Jpeg view is oftentimes far from my final vision. Half of the creativity is in the processing.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160352\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I work the same way.  Given the very tight spaces I shoot sometimes you just can't get the image you want without shooting a number of different frames and blending.  Its gotten to the point that I too plan my moves way before the image gets to post.  It's not uncommon for me to have 6-8 layers in a given file.  Thats why I have held my ground.  But it's costing me.
Title: No need of RAW !!!
Post by: JessicaLuchesi on December 14, 2007, 05:45:23 AM
Quote
The problem in my area is that a few printers have now convinced clients (mostly direct clients...not agencies) that they should be the ones to process the raw files.  I'm guessing its a way to replace that lost scanning money.  The problem with this is that a number of important post processing steps get missed, like correction of barrel or pin cushion distortion, local contrast enhancement and really good perspective correction.  And in my case it would also remove lots of the work I do to improve the images such as layering etc. 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160318\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think you're right on the money. One thing I'll argument, next time I have to give in RAW files, is this:

Give in DNG files ( not the base native raw file my camera works on ), and pre-process it with the corrections I feel needed. If they dislike the processing I've done on the files, they can simply reset all DNG files back to default settings.

I have no idea what they'll say anyway. But I'll negotiate.

I have a friend who also processes TIFF files, as a guideline to show what he wants from processing his file ( well, he would like really the client to use those... but they won't, but the best they can do, is see what it would be, processed his way ). Talking with him yesterday, he was talking also, how he loved picture styles ( I was showing him my 40D, he's thinking of getting a 1DsMkIII by next year, and wanted to see one of the new gen Canon's in his hands ). And I was simply dismissing my need for picture styles ( and custom ones ) by saying "Well, but I do get to process my files afterwards on photoshop..." right? Wrong, when I have to give in raw files, I'm never given the chance to even work contrast and saturation levels to my liking. If I use picture styles, I can simply work as if I had a "high contrast film" being sent to the client. I'll play a bit with that now, having that idea in mind. It's not perfect, but one more way of having photos sent more like the way I like them done.
Title: No need of RAW !!!
Post by: JessicaLuchesi on December 14, 2007, 05:46:27 AM
Quote
I work the same way.  Given the very tight spaces I shoot sometimes you just can't get the image you want without shooting a number of different frames and blending.  Its gotten to the point that I too plan my moves way before the image gets to post.  It's not uncommon for me to have 6-8 layers in a given file.  Thats why I have held my ground.  But it's costing me.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160522\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Same here.
Title: No need of RAW !!!
Post by: John Sheehy on December 14, 2007, 08:07:42 AM
Quote
The initial damage was done.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160229\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Your post seems to be suffering, perhaps, from the same bug in the forum software that I encountered a while back.  There seems to be a limit on how many quote/close_quote pairs you can have in one post.  What I did in my case to get around the problem was to cut out the last half of the post, and then paste it into another new post.
Title: No need of RAW !!!
Post by: digitaldog on December 14, 2007, 09:26:38 AM
Quote
Your post seems to be suffering, perhaps, from the same bug in the forum software that I encountered a while back.  There seems to be a limit on how many quote/close_quote pairs you can have in one post.  What I did in my case to get around the problem was to cut out the last half of the post, and then paste it into another new post.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160629\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yup, I spend way too long trying to fix it using all kinds of devices until I finally said 'screw it'. So its a bug? Good to know.
Title: No need of RAW !!!
Post by: John Sheehy on December 14, 2007, 09:35:51 AM
Quote
So its a bug? Good to know.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160648\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, it's a bug to me.  The designer might call it a "design decision".
Title: No need of RAW !!!
Post by: digitaldog on December 14, 2007, 09:43:42 AM
Quote
Well, it's a bug to me.  The designer might call it a "design decision".
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160650\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I worked with a software engineer and when told about what I considered a bug, he's say "Its not a bug, it just doesn't work properly". Engineers, can't live with them, can't live without em.
Title: No need of RAW !!!
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on December 14, 2007, 01:26:47 PM
I think the PC term is "undocumented feature".
Title: No need of RAW !!!
Post by: DarkPenguin on December 14, 2007, 02:34:17 PM
Quote
I worked with a software engineer and when told about what I considered a bug, he's say "Its not a bug, it just doesn't work properly". Engineers, can't live with them, can't live without em.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160651\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I prefer to just say "functions as coded."
Title: No need of RAW !!!
Post by: Rob C on December 14, 2007, 02:37:57 PM
Quote
I have a number of clients for whom I provide the conversions and have the profles fro all of the local printers (90% of my work is printed here).  Thats how I want it to work for everyone.  Sadly there are a growing number of "peers" willing to give the farm away...these guys don't even charge the client a capture fee and give the raws at no charge.

In a market that is getting tighter ( I work for RV and Marine clients) and sales slowing, more and more of the customers are buying photography like they buy hamber...how much a pound.  It's not a good sign.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160521\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Craig

I have no idea how old you are or even how long you have been in business, but I have to say this: your experiences with RAW, printers et al are nothing new because clients have always been difficult creatures if in different ways.

Quality is not always their primary consideration either: I once went to see an art director in an attempt to introduce my work to his agency; he already knew me, to an extent, by reputation and having seen my stuff here and there. Well, after looking through my portfolio, he said ´lovely work, Rob, but we use so-and-so.´ I asked why not give me a shot too, and the reply was that though my stuff was better, so-and-so was a lot cheaper. This wasn´t any little design shop - this was Glasgow´s biggest advertising agency with mega clients and million-pound listings. And the point here is this: it all happened in the late 60s!  There is nothing new in clients wanting to find cheaper options, they always will and that will continue, now  in the world of pixels as earlier in the worlds of transparencies and hard prints!

To lose clients by standing on your principles is not always the way to fly: you have to be pragmatic in life, as I´m sure you must have found for yourself, and for people to seek help from, or rely on any trade - oops! professional association that´s connected with photography to solve business problems is not going to bring a lot of joy. Now, were we talking about medical, law or similar societies, then yes, expect real advance and advantage. But photography? Very amusing!

To return to your conclusion: yes, to many people it IS just like buying burgers.

Sadly, Rob C
Title: No need of RAW !!!
Post by: Craig Lamson on December 14, 2007, 08:32:10 PM
Quote
Craig

I have no idea how old you are or even how long you have been in business, but I have to say this: your experiences with RAW, printers et al are nothing new because clients have always been difficult creatures if in different ways.

Quality is not always their primary consideration either: I once went to see an art director in an attempt to introduce my work to his agency; he already knew me, to an extent, by reputation and having seen my stuff here and there. Well, after looking through my portfolio, he said ´lovely work, Rob, but we use so-and-so.´ I asked why not give me a shot too, and the reply was that though my stuff was better, so-and-so was a lot cheaper. This wasn´t any little design shop - this was Glasgow´s biggest advertising agency with mega clients and million-pound listings. And the point here is this: it all happened in the late 60s!  There is nothing new in clients wanting to find cheaper options, they always will and that will continue, now  in the world of pixels as earlier in the worlds of transparencies and hard prints!

To lose clients by standing on your principles is not always the way to fly: you have to be pragmatic in life, as I´m sure you must have found for yourself, and for people to seek help from, or rely on any trade - oops! professional association that´s connected with photography to solve business problems is not going to bring a lot of joy. Now, were we talking about medical, law or similar societies, then yes, expect real advance and advantage. But photography? Very amusing!

To return to your conclusion: yes, to many people it IS just like buying burgers.

Sadly, Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160691\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well Rob I've been doing stuff my entire adult life and I'm 54..just about to be 55.  My business is 10 years old.

The problem I have with lowering myself is that once you climb down, you are just never going to climb back up.  It works that way on price or quality.  One has to decide just what is important.  After all of these years I'm just not sure I want to become a bottom  feeder.  Sure there is cash available but at what "personal" cost?  It would be very easy to get rid of the 10,000 square foot studio and all of the big hot lights and just carry around 6 or 8 Alien Bees in the trunk of my car...just like the guys who are beating up my market right now.  However thats just not me.

I'm convinced that digital is a blessing and a curse.  Back in the day when everyone demanded 4x5  or 120 chromes the clients had no problem paying a true professional.  Now, just like in the first days of desktop publishing, everyone has a d40 ans is a "photographer".  Oh well, such is the changing nature of life...

I've some very important decisions to make real soon.!
Title: No need of RAW !!!
Post by: astanley on December 15, 2007, 03:14:40 PM
Quote
For those of us that strive to get the very best rendering out of the very best shots, there simply is no argument.  Yet there are popular websites whose authors dismiss RAW as an unnecessary complication or worse....and a lot of novices believe them, and keep asking the question.

Mike Coffey
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159059\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Mike,

There is a far more insidious clan I've come across - the "Why shoot JPEG?  If you are a good photographer, you don't need the power and flexibilty RAW gives you"

Frankly, those people have probably never worked in a darkroom... and it scares me when I see people talk like that.

Cheers,

-Andrew
Title: No need of RAW !!!
Post by: jjj on December 18, 2007, 10:45:03 PM
Quote
You're entitled to that opinion even if I disagree.
Thanks so much for pointing that out!
How long you've been using Raw or your recommendations is immaterial to the points you still don't get.
No one said this was so, why do you feel you need to move away from the topic at hand and introduce such nonsensical statements.
This hasn't, nor shouldn't be a discussion about aesthetes. It's about a technical point you dismiss or fail to recognize.
Pointless to THIS discussion. If you had a Raw and a JPEG, we could discuss apples and apples.
Whatever blows your skirt up.
I am but once again, you've gone way OT not to express a point but to camouflages any desire to stay on track about a technical dissuasion here.
Again, a lot of writing that is totally immaterial to THIS post. As such, I suspect you either 'don't get it' or don't want to. Until you can stay on topic, I'm going to have to assume both.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160264\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I suggest you go back to school and redo English comprehension.
You simply dismiss anything counter to your viewpoint as irrelevent or off topic, usually as you never seem to read posts in context. You seem to be ignorant about the very varying abilities of working pros and God know why you think the photographer always knows best. Quite a few of the ones I know [experienced and doing quite very well for themselves] are pretty clueless about RAW and many other technical things, they are photographers and not software geeks/scientist types like you are.  I meet up regularly with other working pros in my city and half of them hate the techy/software crap. They pay someone to calibrate their monitors as they do not have the time or inclination to learn about such things as guess what, they are too busy taking photographs.

I tend to spend very little time on internet forums as I get really fed up with idiots not reading posts properly before responding. LL is useful for tecnical knowledge and is usually free of such types, but you seem to be the exception here. Plus you are so absolute about things, when quite frankly only a fool is absolute about humans and human behaviour. You should stick to pixel peeping, where being exact is a useful attribute.
The fact that you dismiss aethetics show how little you understand, as that is the absolute bottom line. Besides, getting the very best technical quality is not always the most important thing. As if it was, no-one would use anythng other than say a Hasselblad 39M camera or a 10x8 film camera. Any camera less perfect than the very best camera is a degradation in quality by comparison. Just like a JPEG is not as good qulity as a RAW file.

As an aside, even after calibrating the colours in ACR/LR,  JPEGs out of the camera still have a slight edge in pleasing colour rendition on skin tones, in certain lighting conditions. And that is actually more important in many respects than being able to recover highlights or see into the shadows. Personally I quite like black shadows and will happily sacrifice the detail there if need be. A colour chart calibration is noticably better than no calibration, but still not always quite there with skin tones. And for some shots I may well use the JPEG if it looks nicer. And looking nicer is the most important thing.
I think the problem with colour chart calibration is that you may need to do it with each lighting situation, which is not always practical and somewhat impossible to do with shoots already done.
Title: No need of RAW !!!
Post by: jjj on December 18, 2007, 10:55:26 PM
Quote
Frankly, those people have probably never worked in a darkroom... and it scares me when I see people talk like that.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160895\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Lots of very good photographers have never worked in a darkroom. Lots of pros used to have darkroom specialists to do their printing for them. Does that make them any less a photographer? Being able to capture the moment is quite different from having the patience to dodge and burn with bits of card or to use PS/ACR properly.
 I was reading about one of the great photographers, like Avedon or someone of his stature/age [annoyingly I forget who now], saying that he now uses digital, but he has an assistant to do all the computer stuff as he wasn't that interested.
Title: No need of RAW !!!
Post by: jjj on December 18, 2007, 11:11:08 PM
Quote
To return to your conclusion: yes, to many people it IS just like buying burgers.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160691\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
And like the many who think a MacWhopper is good food, far fewer people appreciate a better quality organic burger. Just like far fewer people can seen the point in the using RAW over JPEGs. As they think JPEGs are more than good enough.
Heck, look at the success of iTunes, selling people a lower quality product than they were used to, yet which they think is great = oodles of cash.