Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: No need of RAW !!!  (Read 16444 times)
AjantaKVS
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 26


« on: December 07, 2007, 11:10:16 AM »
ReplyReply

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
Logged
michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4783



« Reply #1 on: December 07, 2007, 11:15:18 AM »
ReplyReply

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).
« Last Edit: December 07, 2007, 01:13:25 PM by michael » Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8628



WWW
« Reply #2 on: December 07, 2007, 11:37:53 AM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
airchinapilot
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 50


« Reply #3 on: December 07, 2007, 11:47:58 AM »
ReplyReply

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 ...  
Logged
Sean H
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 55


WWW
« Reply #4 on: December 07, 2007, 11:52:31 AM »
ReplyReply

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
Logged
Kirk Gittings
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1543


WWW
« Reply #5 on: December 07, 2007, 12:09:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Shooting JPEG is like rowing with one oar.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2007, 12:10:06 PM by Kirk Gittings » Logged

Thanks,
Kirk

Kirk Gittings
Architecture and Landscape Photography
WWW.GITTINGSPHOTO.COM

LIGHT+SPACE+STRUCTURE (blog)
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #6 on: December 07, 2007, 12:21:10 PM »
ReplyReply

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
« Last Edit: December 07, 2007, 12:24:37 PM by Rob C » Logged

digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8628



WWW
« Reply #7 on: December 07, 2007, 12:26:48 PM »
ReplyReply

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)
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
blansky
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 155


« Reply #8 on: December 07, 2007, 12:28:40 PM »
ReplyReply

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
Logged
Tim Gray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2002



WWW
« Reply #9 on: December 07, 2007, 01:10:05 PM »
ReplyReply

No need for RAW - just shoot film - problem solved.
Logged
John Sheehy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 838


« Reply #10 on: December 07, 2007, 01:19:11 PM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged
Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7790



WWW
« Reply #11 on: December 07, 2007, 01:30:57 PM »
ReplyReply

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.  
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
bob mccarthy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 372


WWW
« Reply #12 on: December 07, 2007, 01:49:27 PM »
ReplyReply

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
« Last Edit: December 07, 2007, 01:49:50 PM by bob mccarthy » Logged
djgarcia
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 343



WWW
« Reply #13 on: December 07, 2007, 01:57:14 PM »
ReplyReply

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!
Logged

Over-Equipped Snapshooter - EOS 1dsII & 1DsIII, Zeiss & Leica lenses
http://improbablystructuredlayers.net
airchinapilot
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 50


« Reply #14 on: December 07, 2007, 02:17:52 PM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged
azmike
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 29


WWW
« Reply #15 on: December 07, 2007, 02:45:12 PM »
ReplyReply

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

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
Logged
rdonson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1420


WWW
« Reply #16 on: December 07, 2007, 02:52:29 PM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged

[span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'][span style='font-family:Arial'][span style='font-family:Geneva'][span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%']Regards,
Ron[/span][/span][/span][/span]
Sean H
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 55


WWW
« Reply #17 on: December 07, 2007, 03:51:23 PM »
ReplyReply

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
Logged
Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7790



WWW
« Reply #18 on: December 07, 2007, 04:02:41 PM »
ReplyReply

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.  
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
fike
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1373


Hiker Photographer


WWW
« Reply #19 on: December 07, 2007, 04:04:54 PM »
ReplyReply

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).
Logged

Fike, Trailpixie, or Marc Shaffer
marcshaffer.net
TrailPixie.net

I carry an M43 ILC, a couple of good lenses, and a tripod.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad