Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: No need of RAW !!!  (Read 15824 times)
daethon
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 75


« Reply #40 on: December 09, 2007, 08:31:18 AM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged

eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3635



WWW
« Reply #41 on: December 09, 2007, 08:53:00 AM »
ReplyReply

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
« Last Edit: December 09, 2007, 08:53:59 AM by eronald » Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 8039



WWW
« Reply #42 on: December 09, 2007, 08:57:37 AM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged

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

Posts: 75


« Reply #43 on: December 09, 2007, 10:24:07 AM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged

sjstremb
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 19


WWW
« Reply #44 on: December 09, 2007, 02:50:14 PM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged
djgarcia
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 343



WWW
« Reply #45 on: December 09, 2007, 03:13:44 PM »
ReplyReply

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 .
Logged

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

Posts: 128


WWW
« Reply #46 on: December 09, 2007, 04:12:55 PM »
ReplyReply

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  
« Last Edit: December 09, 2007, 04:15:19 PM by JessicaLuchesi » Logged
JessicaLuchesi
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 128


WWW
« Reply #47 on: December 09, 2007, 04:29:42 PM »
ReplyReply

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
Logged
daethon
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 75


« Reply #48 on: December 09, 2007, 05:22:15 PM »
ReplyReply

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...
Logged

jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3078



WWW
« Reply #49 on: December 09, 2007, 07:21:39 PM »
ReplyReply

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.
« Last Edit: December 09, 2007, 07:22:51 PM by jjj » Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 8039



WWW
« Reply #50 on: December 09, 2007, 07:28:41 PM »
ReplyReply

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).
Logged

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

Posts: 3078



WWW
« Reply #51 on: December 09, 2007, 09:53:35 PM »
ReplyReply

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.
« Last Edit: December 09, 2007, 09:58:37 PM by jjj » Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 8039



WWW
« Reply #52 on: December 10, 2007, 08:04:55 AM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #53 on: December 11, 2007, 12:09:12 PM »
ReplyReply

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
Logged

AjantaKVS
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 26


« Reply #54 on: December 12, 2007, 03:44:46 AM »
ReplyReply

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
Logged
JessicaLuchesi
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 128


WWW
« Reply #55 on: December 12, 2007, 06:23:03 AM »
ReplyReply

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.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2007, 06:24:07 AM by JessicaLuchesi » Logged
AjantaKVS
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 26


« Reply #56 on: December 12, 2007, 07:09:51 AM »
ReplyReply

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
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 8039



WWW
« Reply #57 on: December 12, 2007, 08:13:23 AM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged

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

Posts: 128


WWW
« Reply #58 on: December 12, 2007, 09:12:47 AM »
ReplyReply

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 Săo 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.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2007, 09:17:14 AM by JessicaLuchesi » Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 8039



WWW
« Reply #59 on: December 12, 2007, 09:20:37 AM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad