# Convince me to shoot in RAW



## RobT (Nov 9, 2012)

Now, I had always known there were distinct advantages to RAW, but hadn't thought about it much until recently since I was only a hobbyist on a Rebel XT for five years. I upgraded to a 50D two years ago and tried RAW once or twice but still didn't have much knowledge about photography.

Now, I've been doing photography professionally for several months, have learned a crazy amount, and am pushing to get the absolute best out of my 50D until I can save up for the MkIII.

This article: http://digital-photography-school.com/should-you-be-shooting-raw
Finally made it stupidly obvious to me why RAW will always be a higher quality then the camera-JPEG equivalent. Somehow I didn't realize until now that there is quite a bit more tonal data in a RAW file.

So I would _really like_ to be shooting in RAW, but a few things are holding me back:

1) Data management. 
I don't have the budget for a bunch of HDD's, especially while saving every penny for the MkIII. This is not my biggest concern, but it will be a greater task trying to back up 800 RAW files instead of JPEGs. I know there has got to be a way to delete all images in a folder not chosen for import when using lightroom. If someone could explain that to me or if anyone knows of a workaround, data management wouldn't concern me as much. I always import more than I truly end up with, and I don't want to add to my workflow time by deleting all the out of focus images outside of lightroom before starting the import process.

2) Workflow time with only RAW files. 
I know I'll figure out the speediest way for me once I actually start taking on the beast, but some advice on getting started would be greatly appreciated. I advertise a photo-journalistic style for weddings, so I often come home with over a thousand images expecting to choose about half of them to process. Part of this is needing to be more selective in shooting, but I still feel much safer taking three shots of the same pose using the 50D and shallow DoF as there is such a razor thin margin for getting critical areas in focus. 

Does lightroom handle RAW files in an efficient manner? With so many images per session, I'd prefer to keep all my work within lightroom. I'm just worried that processing RAW and then processing all the produced images will prove to be too time consuming. It may not be a problem if I did photography full time, but it is currently a weekend job on top of my normal full time job. Business is starting to pick up for me, and time management is starting to become a real issue.

Help please ;D


----------



## florianbieler.de (Nov 9, 2012)

If you are doing "photography professionally for several months", you should have figured the advantages of RAW out by yourself a long time ago.

I will try to wrap it up anyway, it's not very hard to understand. There is a reason why RAW files are that big. They simply hold much, much more information than your standard compressed JPEG Image, thus allowing you to cover wider ranges of possibilities in post-processing. For example, is your picture too dark? No problem, brighten it to levels where your JPEG would throw out artifacts already. Wedding sounds like often indoors to me, so light would be a thing to keep in mind here and a RAW just grants you more space to get the picture you want later.

If you use Lightroom, then you probably know that it's not only an editing, but also an archiving tool. I don't really see why it would consume more time to look through RAW files instead of JPEGs, except if you got a low class computer that cannot access these files in an acceptable timespan.

When it's coming to backups, I also don't see a problem. I only shoot in raw, which grants me about 300 pictures on my 16GB SD Card in the 5D Mark III, and when processed, I save them as high quality JPEG. You probably wouldn't keep backups in RAW anyway, as it would eat your harddrive like crazy. When I am on vacation, I process the pics worth processing from RAW, the rest gets converted to JPEG via IrfanView without any processing at all.

Another problem for you would be the data speed of your camera. 1000 pics on one wedding? Sounds like burst mode to me. Your 50D won't be able to shoot more than 8 to 10 pics in a row without some room to breathe to save them first.

If you are going to switch to a 5D Mark III sometime in the future, the backup question would already be clear. Because it has got a CF and a SD card slot, you can shoot RAW and JPEG simultaneously and save RAW on the CF, and JPEG on the SD, that even crosses out the need to convert them later but allows you to process the much better RAWs in the first place.


----------



## SwissBear (Nov 9, 2012)

For Lightroom: after the import (actually after the first 10-20 images have loaded), i check in the "previous import" every pic and use pick [ p ] and reject [ x ] while having a first look at the pictures. everything that is obviously bad gets trashed.
then i select via attributes (top middle in the catalogue window) either all rejected pic or, depending on the projet, all that are not picked and the rejected. Then its easy: selet all, delete (also from disk).

Woosh, and you have only the pictures left on your drive that are "good".

Then make a new collection and put everything that i wanna keep in it and then the real work begins and however so often another pic gets an [ x ] and sooner, but normally later (that point when only 50GB are left on the drive) it gets cleaned 

I work on a 2 year old mid-class notebook, previewing is normally fast (1sec per picture to get full resolution, 2sec max to change to develop).
On my desktop (which catches dust at my parents home), a 3 year old i7-920 then-high-end-gaming machine, there is no visible delay.
So your computer should be able to cope quite well with RAWs, as also jpegs need to be decoded.


----------



## sanj (Nov 9, 2012)

In all practicality, if you do not feel the need for RAW, you do not need it. 
If you are happy with JPEG, no need for RAW. It is generally an overkill and time consuming.


----------



## SwissBear (Nov 9, 2012)

RAW is that back-up mechanism that lets you correct the missed manual EV stteing to compensate the black tux or that bright window behind your subject.

Oh, and dont hesitate to underexpose 1-2 stops to get a more reasonable shutterspeed 8)


----------



## canonball93 (Nov 9, 2012)

The only person that will convince you to shoot RAW is YOU. As a "professional", you should realize the pros and cons of RAW and JPG files. If you determine you really don't need to devote time to process RAW images, then use JPG. It's your decision...you are the only one who knows what you are trying to achieve in your shots!
In my opinion, a true professional photographer wouldn't be asking this question.
Regards,
Gordon
5DMkIII, T3i with L-glass up the ying-yang!


----------



## Crapking (Nov 9, 2012)

Good advice on LR data management is readily available (Scott Kelby, adobe tutorials, etc) as well as the brief outline above. 

One word of caution - pick a strategy and stay with it. 

For example, you COULD use a separate catalog for every shoot, and keep each shoot / catalog / files together on an inexpensive and separate HDD.

Or you could use only 1 catalog and organize each shoot into collections as noted above. Eventually your catalog will become large and require more computing power, but this allows searching to be limited to only 1 catalog.

The real question is how long do you want / need to keep your archives. Getting rid of the non-keepers is the easy part, but staying organized is better done in 'real-time'.

Learn to consistently use keywords or a rating system as you go through your shots! This will make it easier to later find YOUR favorites (to post here, enter contests, compare techniques, settings, etc). 

As to RAW file management, it is critical to use LR file management and not move the files outside of LR or else you will have hard time using LR fully to its' capability. Once you post-process the RAW, EXPORT the JPG to use as both a backup and for commercial / personal use. The RAW will always remain within the LR catalog you are working in. 

If completely satisfied, after exporting the JPG, you COULD delete the RAW files to clear space, but then you lose the ability to make future changes. It all depends on how much you anticipate returning to the project files. 

Another time-saver - during import, apply basic camera/LR presets and render 1:1 preivews - and go to sleep/eat, etc. Come back and then pick/choose/rate as noted above. You won't have to wait to see each picture. Takes more time initially, but helps speed up the rating process. Also, if you can, learn to use 2 monitors during your selection/rating. On the second monitor, use GRID view and you can see what shots are coming next, use your eyes to move back and forth and you are not stuck trying to pick out keepers based on the thumbnails. 

Good luck...


----------



## Dylan777 (Nov 9, 2012)

My 2 cents: 

Out of 100 pictures I took, I usually end up around 10-15. Those 10-15 will get PP through lightroom and save as JPEG + RAW. 

My backup will always be RAW. I have 2 of 5T external HD. I usually wait for them to be on sale at Frys Electronic. Sometime you can get them for couple hundred dollars for 5T HD.


----------



## Swphoto (Nov 9, 2012)

SwissBear said:


> For Lightroom: after the import (actually after the first 10-20 images have loaded), i check in the "previous import" every pic and use pick [ p ] and reject [ x ] while having a first look at the pictures. everything that is obviously bad gets trashed.
> then i select via attributes (top middle in the catalogue window) either all rejected pic or, depending on the projet, all that are not picked and the rejected. Then its easy: selet all, delete (also from disk).



FYI, once you've flagged the non-keepers via x (or shift+x - flags and then moves to the next pic) you can then hit ctrl+backspace to delete the rejected photos - saves a bit of time.


----------



## rpt (Nov 9, 2012)

If you nail exposure and WB every time (when it counts) and do not need to edit your jpegs forget about RAW. If you need to edit, you are *much* better off shooting RAW... My 2c...


----------



## kubelik (Nov 9, 2012)

since you're now shooting photography professionally, then it's important to think of photography as a business. and in business your back-of-house / logistics is just as important as your front-of-house product. to get 4 or 6 TB of storage nowadays should set you back about half a grand. that's not an unreasonable investment (no different than purchasing a 50 f/1.4). storage & backups are not really an "optional" part of running a serious photography business.

if you do have the time for it, you can go through and delete RAWs that will not be used for final p/p work. but at the end of the day, there's a cost-benefit to that as well, you need to look at what your time is worth. if you come back from a wedding shoot with three 16 GB cards full of photos each weekend in the summer, you may soon find that purchasing several RAID drives is in fact much cheaper than wasting time individually checking off photos from your cards as you download them.


----------



## awinphoto (Nov 9, 2012)

For what it's worth... while RAW WILL give you more information, many of the top pros do not, ever, shoot raw... too much workflow... Pro's such as doug gordon, joe bussink, and many more do not shoot raw... I do not shoot raw for most my work... We can get hard drives... but seriously... saving raws, saving final production outputs, etc... In the end, unless I start charging storage fee's for my pictures, it's just not worth it... Dont let anyone tell you otherwise... In the situation you find the loss in quality affecting your business or if you print a large 20x30 and become underwhelmed... dont sweat it.


----------



## RLPhoto (Nov 9, 2012)

Once I started shooting RAW, I found JPEG's to be absolute garbage. I use Small Jpeg + Raw so i can deliver the little jpeg file if needed ASAP but the RAW for real processing.


----------



## awinphoto (Nov 9, 2012)

This is the same argument as those who say to be a pro, you must shoot with 1dx's and such... I've heard these arguments all my career and likely will see them 20 years in the future, assuming jpegs and raws are still around. Dont let anyone disparage your shooting style... only you can judge your final quality... Only you can judge how you want your quality to represent your business and your brand... if your cool with what you get by jpeg, dont sweat it... but if your underwhelmed and wish you had more information... By all means... Do what you need to do.


----------



## Jay Khaos (Nov 9, 2012)

One misconception that I hear people mention a lot is that it requires a RAW file to edit in adobe raw (changing shadows, fill light, exposure, etc). You can do that with any image type... the difference is that raw is uncompressed so that the effects work more cleanly when done before compressed to jpeg, in general. 

One advantage of full frame over cropped is the better quality bokeh... isnt it? Buying a 5D mkiii would kind of be like buying a top of the line HDTV just to watch VHS tapes.

Although it depends on your work mainly. If your work is purely used for digital or relatively small print and time is more of a concern than nitpicking on IQ... maybe staying in jpeg is more valuable. Although if that were the case, I would DEFINITELY not waste the money on the 5D mkiii.


----------



## DavidB (Nov 9, 2012)

kubelik said:


> since you're now shooting photography professionally, then it's important to think of photography as a business. and in business your back-of-house / logistics is just as important as your front-of-house product. to get 4 or 6 TB of storage nowadays should set you back about half a grand. that's not an unreasonable investment (no different than purchasing a 50 f/1.4). storage & backups are not really an "optional" part of running a serious photography business.
> 
> if you do have the time for it, you can go through and delete RAWs that will not be used for final p/p work. but at the end of the day, there's a cost-benefit to that as well, you need to look at what your time is worth. if you come back from a wedding shoot with three 16 GB cards full of photos each weekend in the summer, you may soon find that purchasing several RAID drives is in fact much cheaper than wasting time individually checking off photos from your cards as you download them.


+1

www.studiojada.com
www.studiojada.com/blog


----------



## DavidB (Nov 9, 2012)

JPG may as well not even be an option for me, I always always shoot RAW. Storage space and external hard drives are SO CHEAP nowadays the extra space is basically a non-issue. Lightroom is VERY efficient at processing raws so there is no noticeable extra processing time. I shoot a lot of low light weddings and sometimes need to underexpose to get shutter speed fast enough, and then push exposure in PP, forget doing this if you shoot in JPG. I also tweak white balance in PP, and RAW is much more flexible for that. Why would you want to throw out all the extra information and settle with JPG? The RAW file also serves as the "Digital Negative" giving you, the copyright owner, the end all proof that your picture is your picture. 

www.studiojada.com
www.studiojada.com/blog


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 9, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> Once I started shooting RAW, I found JPEG's to be absolute garbage. I use Small Jpeg + Raw so i can deliver the little jpeg file if needed ASAP but the RAW for real processing.



I'm using this small jpg sidecar, too - but just to see what the camera would have done and to be able to quickly browse though the collection outside Lightroom.



RobT said:


> Does lightroom handle RAW files in an efficient manner?



My 2 cents:

a) Convert .cr2 to .dng in Lightroom which will save a few mb per shot

b) for less-than-stellar shots use lossy dng compression which about halves the file size, is virtually indistinguishable from the uncompressed raw and way better than 100% jpeg + it retains the raw advantages

c) it's not like you cannot convert the raw files to jpeg later on to further save hd space


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 9, 2012)

Two words: white balance. Most Canon bodies don't do Auto WB all that well, and shooting RAW lets you alter WB with no IQ penalty. 

Basically, you're trading time and storage space for better IQ. Plus, the edits that you'd probably be doing (cropping, etc.), you'd be doing to the JPG as well, so most of the time is the computer doing the RAW conversions, and you just batch those and let them run while you do something else.


----------



## magic koala (Nov 9, 2012)

I am not a professional but when I was starting I only shot in jpeg. In the beginning, you learn a lot of things and my problem was that my keeper rate was very poor. Maybe I'd keep 3/10 shots. To get more good pics, I'd just shoot more which was the wrong thing to do. As my skills improved, I got to about 70% and 80% keeper rate and could shoot less. I also realized I could further increase the rate by shooting RAW and "saving" pics by adjusting exposure and other dimensions. I find shooting RAW+jpeg works for me. Most of my shots are nice enough to share unprocessed (jpeg) and if I find I need to work on it, I've got the RAW files.

As for disk space, that should not be an issue if you are a "pro". As others have pointed out, external hard drives with TB capacity are quite affordable. I picked up a 3TB hard drive for 130 bucks and it was not on sale. I download RAW+jpeg onto my PC. I process what I need to do on RAW and save those as my final jpegs. I then copy everything to the external hard drive, but keep the jpegs for quick access on my PC.

I shot a wedding a several weeks ago as a favor a few weeks ago and one of my stipulations was that I was NOT (too much work since this was free) going to do the post process on them. Even though I thought my jpegs looked fine, I still supplied the original RAW to the photoshop expert. Having RAW gives you more options and if you are in this to make money and be successful, you need to have the best options available to you. I'm pretty sure the photoshop expert would have considered me quite unprofessional if I had given him jpeg only.


----------



## distant.star (Nov 9, 2012)

.
Truth really is stranger than fiction.


----------



## awinphoto (Nov 9, 2012)

Just my 2 cents... some people shoot raw, a lot of high volume top pro's do not... The more you shoot, the less raw you typically shoot... Many of the top pro's will even outsource all their PS work... It's all about speed and efficiency... For the amateur and the semi pro's who dont have the reputation a big pro does and obsess over every pixel and quality... they shoot raw... There's nothing wrong with either way... As i've mentioned on other threads... I've got my clients... i've got clients whom I know will never need or want all the detail of raw files so I will not shoot raw... I've got my clients whom I know will obsess over the tinest issues... I also have a feeling when shooting if a shot has "that" potential to work its way into my portfolio... in that case, i shoot raw... But yeah... If you expose properly, if you do what you need to do, you can get great results and great large prints with jpegs... Go with your instincts and use your business practices... If you have an entire room dedicated to storing and cataloging and managing hard drives and have a hard drive fetish... by all means... I'm frankly too busy for that. 

WB... you can still alter WB in jpeg in camera raw in adobe, and if you do custom white balance with an expo disc... your golden...


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 9, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Two words: white balance. Most Canon bodies don't do Auto WB all that well, and shooting RAW lets you alter WB with no IQ penalty.



Recently I was asked what wb setting I'm using when I was shooting macro of reptiles at the local zoo. Only then I realized what people who don't shoot raw are missing - I always use awb, but with artificial light it's often way off - but I don't have to care


----------



## ChrisAnderson (Nov 9, 2012)

If you need to be convinced about the benefits of RAW shooting, do you really care enough to use it?
It would be like an audio engineer trying to apply EQ to an MP3 file (which is the counterpart of a JPEG in the audio world) instead of opening up the protools session which contains all the high-quality individual performances that went into creating that track.
That's not even taking Lossy to Lossy conversions into account (which degrades quality each time).
IE, Take a JPEG and edit it, save it to another JPEG - this is significantly more damaging to the file than if you opened the RAW file and exported a JPEG from there.


----------



## V8Beast (Nov 9, 2012)

RobT said:


> 1) Data management.
> I don't have the budget for a bunch of HDD's, especially while saving every penny for the MkIII. This is not my biggest concern, but it will be a greater task trying to back up 800 RAW files instead of JPEGs. I know there has got to be a way to delete all images in a folder not chosen for import when using lightroom. If someone could explain that to me or if anyone knows of a workaround, data management wouldn't concern me as much. I always import more than I truly end up with, and I don't want to add to my workflow time by deleting all the out of focus images outside of lightroom before starting the import process.
> 
> 2) Workflow time with only RAW files.
> ...



Good questions. I have a very efficient rating system called the delete button  ACR gets my images 90% of the way there in terms of processing, so I like how it simply deletes the unwanted files off the memory card instead of having to import the files in Lightroom. It's a very simple and somewhat barbaric system, but it gets the job done ;D

As for the RAW vs. jpeg debate, for files that need to be pushed hard RAW is definitely the way to go. I like the very fine adjustments to the contrast curve that RAW files allow without a penalty in image degradation. With RAW files, I find that I can more precisely isolate minor tweaks to the, midtones, and highlights individually. Conversely, the jpeg engine tends to take a whack at the extreme ends of the contrast curve, sacrificing detail in the process. The camera doesn't know which parts of the image are important to me and which parts aren't, so how can it possibly apply a contrast curve perfectly tailored to each image? The answer is that it can't. 

That said, for files that don't need to be pushed hard, for me there is very little difference in overall IQ between a processed RAW and an out-of-camera jpeg. As such, the tradeoff between time invested and income generated certainly isn't justifiable. Fortunately, I don't need to shoot in high volume to stay profitable. Like awinphoto said, a very effective approach is to pick and choose which gigs can justify the additional processing time of shooting in RAW, and which gigs are better suited for jpegs.


----------



## rpt (Nov 9, 2012)

ChrisAnderson said:


> That's not even taking Lossy to Lossy conversions into account (which degrades quality each time).
> IE, Take a JPEG and edit it, save it to another JPEG - this is significantly more damaging to the file than if you opened the RAW file and exported a JPEG from there.


+1


----------



## Shawn L (Nov 9, 2012)

RAW files on a 50D have 14 bits of data per channel. JPGs, on the other hand, only have 8 bits of data per channel. What does this mean? Well, in a JPG file, values for red, green, and blue range from 0 to 255. In a RAW, red, green, and blue range from 0 to 16383 (effectively). That means there's 64 times more data in the RAW file.

But you can't really display all of that, so why would you want it?

Well, let's suppose you accidentally overexpose an image so that all of the data is in the right half of the histogram. With a JPG, that would mean red, green, and blue only had 128 possible values (values from 128 - 255 (the left hand-side of the histogram, 0-127 is empty)).

If you edited the image, spreading the data out so that the entire histogram was filled, there would still only be 128 unique values for each channel (here, I'm ignoring interpolation which would cause the image to soften; I'm also ignoring dithering, which would help, but effectively introduce noise). So even though you'd now have an image with solid blacks and bright whites, gradations would be blocky.

Looked at numerically:

Initially, your gradation contained: 128, 129, 130, ... 255
After corrections, the gradation contained: 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, ...254


You're jumping by twos in the corrected image because you're trying to cover 256 values with 128 unique inputs.

If, however, you did the same thing with a RAW file, you'd have started with 8192 possible values for red, green, and blue (8192-16383). Looking at that numerically:

Initially, the gradation contained: 8192, 8193, 8194, 8195, ... 16383
After adjustments: 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, ... 16382

But, you're still counting by 2's, right? How is this better?

Well, you still have way colors than are displayable by most devices you're likely to use (your monitor probably is 8 bit, or possibly 10 bit; either way, it has fewer colors than the 14 bit RAW file). When you scale your data back down to fit into the 0 to 255 range used by your display, printer, etc, you get:

0 / 64, 2 / 64, 4 / 64,...
0, 0.03, 0.06, ..., 16384/64
0, 0, 0, ..., 255

Thus, all numbers from 0 to 255 are represented (without averaging any of the existing data) and you get smooth gradations.

That means RAW allows you to more heavily edit images without causing visual artifacts.

Note that the above works no matter how you've over or under exposed your image -- up to a point, of course 

Shawn L.


----------



## awinphoto (Nov 9, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> Fortunately, I don't need to shoot in high volume to stay profitable. Like awinphoto said, a very effective approach is to pick and choose which gigs can justify the additional processing time of shooting in RAW, and which gigs are better suited for jpegs.



It's not a situation of needing to shoot high volume... but for files that dont need the pushing... I can spend a few hours mucking with raw files, or shoot jpeg and spend the time.... with my family? on marketing? on PR? Shooting more clients? Time is money and money is money... It is what it is... Plus, as I perfect my craft, I find less and less of my stuff needs retouching... Less and less of my stuff needs pushed... The better I light, the more consistent I light (especially since I stopped using speedlights), if i can do some quick changes... heal brush a pimple or two, do a quick few changes... and since there really isn't that much noticeable difference... There has been less and less reason to use them... Now... If i'm shooting for one of my big clients like wells fargo, Marlboro, prudential, etc... damn right i'm shooting raw... they are paying for it... But for a portrait of a girl who may or may not order a 16x20 max... eh... screw it.


----------



## sandymandy (Nov 9, 2012)

If u dont want best image quality just go on shooting in JPG. But i think thats not using a major advantage of DSLR ameras, if not probably THE biggest reason. Same way like u can buy fake leather shoes instead of real leather. But if u can afford real leather....why should u still get fake one?


----------



## Canon-F1 (Nov 9, 2012)

> Convince me to shoot in RAW



why?

it´s your fault when you shoot JPG....


----------



## awinphoto (Nov 9, 2012)

sandymandy said:


> If u dont want best image quality just go on shooting in JPG. But i think thats not using a major advantage of DSLR ameras, if not probably THE biggest reason. Same way like u can buy fake leather shoes instead of real leather. But if u can afford real leather....why should u still get fake one?



In the end, as a business, you have to determine if the end justifies the means... Time is money... Efficiency is everything... If i shoot a wedding... I may have 600-800 images... my trigger happy second shooter may have another 1200-1300 shots... Processing them, time lag to see full res files, selecting, editing, album design, proofing, etc... MAYBE a handful of images are bought at 16x20 or 20x24... maybe they order a 20x30 or 30x40 but they are on canvas and wall pieces... and they tend to be the creative shots and formals... set-up, ceremony and reception almost all album or smaller prints... not much reason to justify raws... when you're going through that much, for 1 wedding, that's the difference between a 4-5 hour workflow and a 4-5 day workflow... time is everything... efficiency is everything... I know what needs to be large and what doesn't. It isn't that I'm sacrificing quality... I've done my tests and know what settings I need to be at to best replicate my raw settings... It's being a good business person and photographer... innovate your business or become a starving artist.


----------



## awinphoto (Nov 9, 2012)

Canon-F1 said:


> > Convince me to shoot in RAW
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Fail


----------



## RLPhoto (Nov 9, 2012)

If you must shoot JPEG, I'd recommend being conservative with the picture control settings. Clip your blacks or highlights, and you'll never see them again.

Not too much sharpening, low contrast, and not too much saturation on the picture control. This will give you some room if you do need to edit a bit more.

If you are being creative with the picture control, Your tweaking the JPEG in camera and wasting time with that when you could be shooting.

What I've been doing quite a bit lately is shooting RAW, Rating the good shots and Processing them in camera w/ the 5D3. I print 4x6's for 10$ a pop at a photo booth straight from a selphy printer w/ a battery. It works out really well. 

Infact, In-camera RAW processing is rapidly becoming my favorite feature on my 5D3!!! Which makes decent prints and a good profit for the occasional photo booth I hold from time to time.


----------



## V8Beast (Nov 9, 2012)

awinphoto said:


> It's not a situation of needing to shoot high volume... but for files that dont need the pushing... I can spend a few hours mucking with raw files, or shoot jpeg and spend the time.... with my family? on marketing? on PR? Shooting more clients? Time is money and money is money... It is what it is... Plus, as I perfect my craft, I find less and less of my stuff needs retouching... Less and less of my stuff needs pushed... The better I light, the more consistent I light (especially since I stopped using speedlights), if i can do some quick changes... heal brush a pimple or two, do a quick few changes... and since there really isn't that much noticeable difference...



That's what I was trying to convey. If the additional data in a RAW file is being utilized to turn what's already a good image into an even better image - and you have the time to process it - by all means shoot RAW. However, I see lots of people spend ungodly volumes of time processing RAW images for an end product that looks no better than an out-of-camera jpeg. IMHO, with a highly proficient exposure and lighting technique, a processed RAW file will only look marginally better than a jpeg. There's still a difference, but it's not dramatic. 

Personally, the instances where I see a huge difference between RAW files and jpegs are where I'm trying to salvage a shot that I f'd up due to poor technique, or if circumstances prevented lighting a subject in a way that best suited the image to begin with. Others mentioned the flexibility of intentionally underexposing an image in low-light situations, and I think that's another great use of the extra detail in a RAW file. 

IMHO, RAW should not be used as a crutch for poor technique, but to make good images even better. RAW is also a great safety net for proficient photographers who botch a shot from time to time


----------



## EOBeav (Nov 9, 2012)

Canon-F1 said:


> > Convince me to shoot in RAW
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's hardly a helpful response.


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 9, 2012)

awinphoto said:


> I know what needs to be large and what doesn't. It isn't that I'm sacrificing quality... I've done my tests and know what settings I need to be at to best replicate my raw settings...



How do you do that? In my experience raw files have more headroom when recovering highlights, which esp. makes a visible difference (well, to me at least) when shooting high contrast scenes - and a couple dressed in black and white would fall in this category? But I've never really spent much time tweaking jpeg settings.


----------



## EOBeav (Nov 9, 2012)

Lightroom will help you get greatest amount of dynamic range from your RAW files that simply aren't there with jpg's.


----------



## awinphoto (Nov 9, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > I know what needs to be large and what doesn't. It isn't that I'm sacrificing quality... I've done my tests and know what settings I need to be at to best replicate my raw settings...
> ...



Shoot shoot shoot... I'm back from the days of film and slides where when you shot a transparency, there was no postproduction changes... you had to get it right in camera... You had to have the experience where when you shot the shutter, you knew what you were going to get... with transparency, the only post you could do was push/pull... brighten/darken... overdevelop/underdevelop (exposure slider anyone in photoshop?)... A client is NOT going to get a set up shot of the church or a table spread as a 20x30... First dance... eh... maybe 8x10, maybe 11x14... daughter father dance... maybe 5x7 or screw it, shove it in the album... first kiss... that MAY be a 11x14 or 16x20 if it's spectacular, but that falls to second string when you have really cool creatives and family portraits... See where i'm getting at... You got to know your client... You got to know their needs and wishes... communication, innovation... Clients are starting to order less prints and want more multimedia... fusion videos... etc... it's all about thinking about what will sell when your shooting.


----------



## awinphoto (Nov 9, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > It's not a situation of needing to shoot high volume... but for files that dont need the pushing... I can spend a few hours mucking with raw files, or shoot jpeg and spend the time.... with my family? on marketing? on PR? Shooting more clients? Time is money and money is money... It is what it is... Plus, as I perfect my craft, I find less and less of my stuff needs retouching... Less and less of my stuff needs pushed... The better I light, the more consistent I light (especially since I stopped using speedlights), if i can do some quick changes... heal brush a pimple or two, do a quick few changes... and since there really isn't that much noticeable difference...
> ...



Fully agreed.


----------



## sb (Nov 9, 2012)

RobT said:


> 1) Data management.
> I don't have the budget for a bunch of HDD's, especially while saving every penny for the MkIII. This is not my biggest concern, but it will be a greater task trying to back up 800 RAW files instead of JPEGs. I know there has got to be a way to delete all images in a folder not chosen for import when using lightroom. If someone could explain that to me or if anyone knows of a workaround, data management wouldn't concern me as much. I always import more than I truly end up with, and I don't want to add to my workflow time by deleting all the out of focus images outside of lightroom before starting the import process.


You can get a 3TB disk right now for $120. Honestly space cannot be an excuse anymore 
Don't filter images at the step where you import them. Import them all, then flag the keepers. Once you are done, select all the "rejects" and delete them from LR and disk at the same time.



RobT said:


> 2) Workflow time with only RAW files.
> I know I'll figure out the speediest way for me once I actually start taking on the beast, but some advice on getting started would be greatly appreciated. I advertise a photo-journalistic style for weddings, so I often come home with over a thousand images expecting to choose about half of them to process. Part of this is needing to be more selective in shooting, but I still feel much safer taking three shots of the same pose using the 50D and shallow DoF as there is such a razor thin margin for getting critical areas in focus.


You have to go through all images 1 by 1 to select the keepers - there is no shortcut there. However if you shoot excessively everything, then once you select your keeper from any given spray burst of images, feel free to skip the rest. You only really need 1 good image out of any given burst.



RobT said:


> Does lightroom handle RAW files in an efficient manner? With so many images per session, I'd prefer to keep all my work within lightroom. I'm just worried that processing RAW and then processing all the produced images will prove to be too time consuming. It may not be a problem if I did photography full time, but it is currently a weekend job on top of my normal full time job. Business is starting to pick up for me, and time management is starting to become a real issue.
> 
> Help please ;D


It's slightly more sluggish than going through JPEGs but you can mitigate that by creating a new LR catalogue every few months. Fresh catalogue = performance.


----------



## gilmorephoto (Nov 9, 2012)

Shoot the same picture in JPEG and RAW. After properly processing the RAW (or even before), compare the two. If you don't see a _meaningful_ difference to _you_, then shoot JPEG. If you see the same meaningful difference that I did the first time I tried this, you will not need anyone to convince you.


----------



## Meh (Nov 9, 2012)

@awinphoto

Your points about the time/money/storage/etc. involved with shooting RAW are well taken but the counter point is that you could still shoot RAW and auto-process your images in LR/DPP with the standard settings you like and not have to do any further PP. The computer will run through thousands of images while you're off spending time on any of the other things you mention. So you've lost nothing but gained something very important... if, as you go through your normal workflow of reviewing all the JPEGS to select the best shots to present to your clients, you happen across a shot you love but feel it needs a little more processing you've got the RAW file to work with. If not, fine, delete all the RAW files so you don't have to save all the large files.


----------



## RobT (Nov 9, 2012)

Thank you all for the overwhelming amount of responses!

Maybe I should preface my situation a bit: I call myself a "professional" because I once read if I want to actually be a professional I should act like one. I know there is a massive difference between the seasoned professional who takes photos in his sleep and me, someone who has one or two sessions every other weekend and only six weddings planned for next year so far (which I think is great for having started this business in June). Simply because I'm not shooting seven days a week though, doesn't mean I can't be providing a professional service where I strive to give my clients the best product that I can and learn as much as I can to better myself.

Also, when I typed "convinced" I really meant "I've already decided to take the plunge but would still appreciate personal experience."

I greatly appreciate the advice about using LR with RAW. I tend to push exposure a lot for my own style and to accommodate changing light situations as much of what I do is outdoors. In that sense, I'm sure I'll notice the benefits immediately. I'm sure I'll also notice that I'll be needing a new HDD pretty soon, but that's a minimal cost compared to a new camera which I'm already saving for.

I shot an engagement session this morning entirely in RAW. Perhaps this will convert me for life.


----------



## awinphoto (Nov 9, 2012)

gilmorephoto said:


> Shoot the same picture in JPEG and RAW. After properly processing the RAW (or even before), compare the two. If you don't see a _meaningful_ difference to _you_, then shoot JPEG. If you see the same meaningful difference that I did the first time I tried this, you will not need anyone to convince you.



Not quite... Take both pictures... apply corrections to both that you would want your images to look, if any... look at the time needed... the footprint in space, and then overall quality... then decide if the end justify the means.


----------



## Standard (Nov 9, 2012)

> When it's coming to backups, I also don't see a problem. I only shoot in raw, which grants me about 300 pictures on my 16GB SD Card in the 5D Mark III, and when processed, I save them as high quality JPEG. You probably wouldn't keep backups in RAW anyway, as it would eat your harddrive like crazy. When I am on vacation, I process the pics worth processing from RAW, the rest gets converted to JPEG via IrfanView without any processing at all.



As for storage of RAW files. I always archive my original RAW files instead of converted JPEGS onto DVDs when I am done _(What's the point of shooting in RAW when in the end you only having JPEGs to refer to?)_. Simply backing and organizing them onto discs solve the storage issue. You can also, as some have mentioned, buy external hard drives to store them. Remember though, archiving files onto DVDs is preferred as opposed to storing files onto hard drives which will corrupt files over time.


----------



## rpt (Nov 9, 2012)

RobT said:


> Thank you all for the overwhelming amount of responses!
> 
> Maybe I should preface my situation a bit: I call myself a "professional" because I once read if I want to actually be a professional I should act like one. I know there is a massive difference between the seasoned professional who takes photos in his sleep and me, someone who has one or two sessions every other weekend and only six weddings planned for next year so far (which I think is great for having started this business in June). Simply because I'm not shooting seven days a week though, doesn't mean I can't be providing a professional service where I strive to give my clients the best product that I can and learn as much as I can to better myself.
> 
> ...


Great! I just started shooting RAW after I got the 5D3. Till then It was all JPG. Once I tasted blood - er - the power of editing RAW, I have stopped shooting JPG. Yes, it is a bit more work but I think it is worth it. I shoot a lot of impromptu shots and so nailing everything is not always possible. With the 5D3 I have shot a lot of shots with ISO >= 6400. These would be very difficult to edit as JPG...


----------



## RobT (Nov 9, 2012)

I actually have a bluray burner. I'll probably start backing up every handful of sessions to a disk and remove them from HDD space.

Newegg has a 50 pack for $42 at the moment. That's 1250 GB of space not prone to electronic or hardware failure.

rpt, what you've described is my goal. I was going to wait until the glory of full-frame to start RAW, but something tells me I should get used to it before that day comes. I always want to get the absolute best out of the equipment I have, so I'm sure my days to come will be full of RAW files.


----------



## awinphoto (Nov 9, 2012)

Meh said:


> @awinphoto
> 
> Your points about the time/money/storage/etc. involved with shooting RAW are well taken but the counter point is that you could still shoot RAW and auto-process your images in LR/DPP with the standard settings you like and not have to do any further PP. The computer will run through thousands of images while you're off spending time on any of the other things you mention. So you've lost nothing but gained something very important... if, as you go through your normal workflow of reviewing all the JPEGS to select the best shots to present to your clients, you happen across a shot you love but feel it needs a little more processing you've got the RAW file to work with. If not, fine, delete all the RAW files so you don't have to save all the large files.



Meh, your suggestions are welcome but frankly, with my 5d3, i know the native sizes are nearly a 14x20, 16x20 traditional... If I know files are going to 11x14 or smaller, odds are you will not, in print, see ANY difference in quality... you are downsizing... sharpness, clarity, NR, detail... A full large jpeg vs raw does me no difference... plus, processing (in the wedding scenario), processing 1800 or more shots... you can have a speedy processor, but it will chew up time and efficiency.... This goes into where I was saying, I can process a wedding in hours, or I can process them in days (or weeks)... Some of my commercial clients demand a 24 hour turn around... not going to happen with raw... It is what it is... Someone asked world famous Sue Bryce why she shoots with the 24-105 because it isn't as sharp as comparable primes... She replied because she's shooting PORTRAITS and sometimes they do not NEED to be as sharp. I tailor my shooting and my approach per job, per client, per price point, and per work needed to get the final product.


----------



## rpt (Nov 9, 2012)

RobT said:


> I actually have a bluray burner. I'll probably start backing up every handful of sessions to a disk and remove them from HDD space.
> 
> Newegg has a 50 pack for $42 at the moment. That's 1250 GB of space not prone to electronic or hardware failure.
> 
> rpt, what you've described is my goal. I was going to wait until the glory of full-frame to start RAW, but something tells me I should get used to it before that day comes. I always want to get the absolute best out of the equipment I have, so I'm sure my days to come will be full of RAW files.


my 2c - just go for it. There is one one graceful way to get into a pool - dive!


----------



## Meh (Nov 9, 2012)

awinphoto said:


> Meh said:
> 
> 
> > @awinphoto
> ...



Honestly you are missing my point... your computer can batch process thousands of files and covert to JPG in a few hours while you are doing something else. When that's done you would have all your shots in JPG exactly as if you shot in JPG. You can now go through your usual workflow and if you're happy with the shots no further processing is necessary and you can delete the RAW files or back them up permanently or temporarily. You have lost nothing. BUT... if there was even one shot that would be GREAT with some additional PP you can go to that one RAW file and do what needs to be done.

For commercial clients with 24hour turnaround I presume you are not shooting 1800 frames so time/efficiency is negligible and you already stated that for big jobs/clients you would shot RAW.

A wedding would normally not be 24 hour turnaround so my point stands... your computer can churn through thousands while you're doing something else.

To each his own but that point is that you can shoot in RAW and lose next to nothing in time/efficiency but gain something just in case that one shot needs some processing that would be challenging if all you had was the JPEG.


----------



## awinphoto (Nov 9, 2012)

Meh said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Meh said:
> ...



But you are missing my point... I shot a recent wedding... cameras were 5d3, 5d2 and 7d... We had a total of like 5 cards full of images... yes, you can transfer each card, you can make one master folder, which will take a few hours, batch process the master folder which will take another few hours if not majority of a day, and it's lost production... even if you decide to use dpp, so it frees up adobe photoshop or lightroom, it still taxes part of your ram... now, you can process right off the card, but then you have to babysit the cards as they process so the next card can go right afterwards, which is expected anyways, but theres a lag where dpp or adobe camera raw can process out of the card reader, and EVEN IF you just process right away with no adjustments, with my experience for anything 11x14 or under, the difference in quality just isn't there. Yes... for my creatives... for my formal portraits... for my family group shots... anything where I look through the VF and get goosebumps when i'm shooting it, yes, I'll shoot raw... but for everything else, it just doesn't matter if i know the image will just end up in an album or such... the difference in quality, for how I shoot, doesn't justify the means... I've done it, i've tried it, i've tested it... I hope you get where I'm getting at... Plus i'm not the only pro that does it... many other top grossing pro's in the industry is saying the same thing... the juice has got to be worth the squeeze.


----------



## AmbientLight (Nov 9, 2012)

In any case, if required you can also switch to RAW+JPEG, so that you have the JPEGs ready as soon as you unload your shots from camera.

As soon as you find something, where you know you will benefit from postproduction, you take the RAW file. Lightroom will load RAWs automatically, if you provide RAW+JPEG files.

You can decide by deletion of files, if you want to keep only one or the other or mix as you go along. It helps to shoot with two memory cards, one for RAW and one for JPEGs.

This may be a waste of memory card space, but it it s certainly a way to be fast and have a backup possibility for RAW processing, if required.


----------



## Maui5150 (Nov 9, 2012)

Ummm.... Where to start.

1) Data management.

HDs are CHEAP. In fact at $99 for a 1TB even some 2TB drives, you can easily have a large drive and keep a full back up for cheap. There 1TB drives will hold roughly 40,000 25MB files. 

I frequently will go through my photos when importing as well as after a review or two and trash the images that really were bad. 

2) Workflow time with only RAW files.

Workflow is easy with JPG because the image is crap, and what you can do with the image is crap. I had an event I was shooting a few months back and by mistake had hit the dial on my 5DMKII and went from TV to M and before I caught the change, had about 8 images that were 8 stops over exposed. While not perfect, I was able to bring these shot back into usable photos in Lightroom. Just a week ago, I was trying to work with a sunset photo my dad took with a Nikon and he shoots in JPG and I could do very little with the photo. Really nice shot... had it been shot in Raw... it would have been stunning.... in JPG... Meh.

Does it take more time to work with raw? Yeah. It also takes more time to paint on canvas with oil paint than it takes to scribble on paper with crayon.

You just have to decide what you want to create.


----------



## PackLight (Nov 9, 2012)

The is why you should use JPG over RAW;

You like the fact that you can buy a huge card and only occasionally need to format your card
You don't have to download to the computer as often
You can down load your pictures delete the few you don't like and forget it
You don't have to spend time in PP and waiting on your computer to finish processing your images.
You only need 1/4 of the memory the RAW heads need on their computer.
You like the random automatic WB that most of Cameras offer, never knowing if you picture will have a blue tint or red tint to it. (Granted that if you get a 1D body some of this joy goes away)
You like the way many canon bodies taking pictures of something with primarily red in it over saturates your picture.
You’re ok with blown highlights and pictures that are either to sharp or need sharpening.
Your confident in your abilities and know that your picture will never be 1/2 stop under or over exposed because after all, you are perfect.

I am sure there are a few more reasons to use JPG over RAW, just need to think on it a bit.


----------



## Policar (Nov 9, 2012)

*It's all about volume...*

If you shoot a lot, particularly as a professional who doesn't want to be mired in PP, JPEG is the way to go. The flip side of that is since you'll be supporting yourself off your work, you can probably afford to invest in a fast rig and storage and Lightroom and Aperture, for instance, should have good file management and fast processing. But for whatever reason if you shoot a lot and don't want to spend time processing in post, go JPEG. Especially if you're a good shooter.

If you don't shoot much and want either the best image quality (Canon's JPEG engine is softer than Adobe's and DXO's) or want to recover blown highlights, RAW can be great. Plus some of the tools available in Adobe's developer are super useful.


----------



## Meh (Nov 9, 2012)

awinphoto said:


> But you are missing my point... I shot a recent wedding... cameras were 5d3, 5d2 and 7d... We had a total of like 5 cards full of images... yes, you can transfer each card, you can make one master folder, which will take a few hours, batch process the master folder which will take another few hours if not majority of a day, and it's lost production... even if you decide to use dpp, so it frees up adobe photoshop or lightroom, it still taxes part of your ram... now, you can process right off the card, but then you have to babysit the cards as they process so the next card can go right afterwards, which is expected anyways, but theres a lag where dpp or adobe camera raw can process out of the card reader, and EVEN IF you just process right away with no adjustments, with my experience for anything 11x14 or under, the difference in quality just isn't there. Yes... for my creatives... for my formal portraits... for my family group shots... anything where I look through the VF and get goosebumps when i'm shooting it, yes, I'll shoot raw... but for everything else, it just doesn't matter if i know the image will just end up in an album or such... the difference in quality, for how I shoot, doesn't justify the means... I've done it, i've tried it, i've tested it... I hope you get where I'm getting at... Plus i'm not the only pro that does it... many other top grossing pro's in the industry is saying the same thing... the juice has got to be worth the squeeze.



I'm not missing your point at all and I get what you're saying which is that processing RAW files takes time and it's not worth that time in certain circumstances for what you're shooting. That is fine and work how you want. 

However this thread is a little more general than that so let's clarify a few things... it does not take "a few hours" to transfer 2000 RAW files whether on 1 card or 5 and you still have to transfer the files whether they are JPEGS or RAW... the difference in time is not as much as you're implying. And the batch processing can be done overnight while you sleep for example.

So you think there is not difference in quality for small prints. For some aspects like sharpness that's possibly true. But for other aspects I respectfully disagree such as exposure, white balance, etc.

You're premise, which I'm not saying is outright wrong, is based on certain assumptions about a particular situation and workflow. For example, you state that the processing of uploading would interfere with using LR (taxing RAM etc.) but that is not necessarily the case... once the RAW files are transferred they can be batch processed while you do something else (PR, marketing, play with kids, sleep) so it is not lost time. If it's a rush job or 24 turn around where every minute counts then that is not likely a wedding with 2000 images.

As for your statement that some other pros also shoot JPEG... so what... many Pros also shoot RAW so that doesn't tell us much and is a rather weak support of your position.


----------



## Meh (Nov 9, 2012)

PackLight said:


> The is why you should use JPG over RAW;
> 
> You like the fact that you can buy a huge card and only occasionally need to format your card
> You don't have to download to the computer as often
> ...


----------



## kubelik (Nov 9, 2012)

I think there's valid reasons to shoot either JPG or RAW, and it sound like the OP has gotten the feedback that he/she was looking for. I'm not sure it's necessary to try and convince people who have clearly established a functional workflow for themselves that their workflow is not ideal - everyone shoots their own way and manages their files their own way. while I shoot RAW+JPG always, I appreciate what awinphoto is saying regarding shooting JPG-only for certain jobs, and it certainly looks like it works well for him/her.


----------



## PackLight (Nov 9, 2012)

kubelik said:


> I think there's valid reasons to shoot either JPG or RAW, and it sound like the OP has gotten the feedback that he/she was looking for. I'm not sure it's necessary to try and convince people who have clearly established a functional workflow for themselves that their workflow is not ideal - everyone shoots their own way and manages their files their own way. while I shoot RAW+JPG always, I appreciate what awinphoto is saying regarding shooting JPG-only for certain jobs, and it certainly looks like it works well for him/her.



Yes but where is the fun of Forum's if we can't try and convince everyone to think and do as we do.


----------



## Meh (Nov 9, 2012)

kubelik said:


> I think there's valid reasons to shoot either JPG or RAW, and it sound like the OP has gotten the feedback that he/she was looking for. I'm not sure it's necessary to try and convince people who have clearly established a functional workflow for themselves that their workflow is not ideal - everyone shoots their own way and manages their files their own way. while I shoot RAW+JPG always, I appreciate what awinphoto is saying regarding shooting JPG-only for certain jobs, and it certainly looks like it works well for him/her.



Yes, you're right. Awinphoto is welcome to shoot how he wants and there is nothing wrong with that. But this is a forum discussion and I find some of his arguments to be inaccurate and/or based on very specific circumstances and assumptions that aren't generally applicable.


----------



## AudioGlenn (Nov 9, 2012)

ChrisAnderson said:


> If you need to be convinced about the benefits of RAW shooting, do you really care enough to use it?
> It would be like an audio engineer trying to apply EQ to an MP3 file (which is the counterpart of a JPEG in the audio world) instead of opening up the protools session which contains all the high-quality individual performances that went into creating that track.
> That's not even taking Lossy to Lossy conversions into account (which degrades quality each time).
> IE, Take a JPEG and edit it, save it to another JPEG - this is significantly more damaging to the file than if you opened the RAW file and exported a JPEG from there.



haha. I hate when people send me MP3s for "mastering"!!!


----------



## RobT (Nov 9, 2012)

So I'm looking through the photos from my session this morning, and my lens was either upgraded overnight or everything is sharper than it has ever been before.

If RAW is going to always be obviously sharper _this much_ I am never going back to JPEG only. I love sharpness. _Love_ sharpness.


----------



## cayenne (Nov 9, 2012)

RobT said:


> Now, I had always known there were distinct advantages to RAW, but hadn't thought about it much until recently since I was only a hobbyist on a Rebel XT for five years. I upgraded to a 50D two years ago and tried RAW once or twice but still didn't have much knowledge about photography.
> 
> Now, I've been doing photography professionally for several months, have learned a crazy amount, and am pushing to get the absolute best out of my 50D until I can save up for the MkIII.
> 
> ...


One thing...harddrives are CHEAP these days. I constantly see Newegg.com specials for 1TB drives for only about $80.


----------



## awinphoto (Nov 9, 2012)

Meh said:


> kubelik said:
> 
> 
> > I think there's valid reasons to shoot either JPG or RAW, and it sound like the OP has gotten the feedback that he/she was looking for. I'm not sure it's necessary to try and convince people who have clearly established a functional workflow for themselves that their workflow is not ideal - everyone shoots their own way and manages their files their own way. while I shoot RAW+JPG always, I appreciate what awinphoto is saying regarding shooting JPG-only for certain jobs, and it certainly looks like it works well for him/her.
> ...



Meh... what part am I not correct... exposure, I shot how I want it exposed, WB I shoot how I want it WB... As I said, I trained back when I had to present 4x5 negatives, 4x5 transparancy's and 4x5 prints of everything I shot... I didn't have the luxury to photoshop everything... I had to get it right, in camera... That's what I aim for now. I do some raw shots in which I intend to tweek and upsell in terms of wall prints, but in a small print (11x14 and smaller) trust me, there is little to no difference... The juice isn't worth the squeeze... my large wall portraits, you betcha it's worth it. While my company isn't as big as Doug Gordon's or as lucrative as Sal Cincotta's or fluid as Sandy Puk's or Sue Bryces, but i'm an artist, I'm a photographer, and frankly, time I would sitting in front of the computer, I could be doing other things... I've done the whole raw weddings... hello... remember 5d3, 5d2 and 7d's... I've processed them, saved to firewire HD's, processed them, I know EXACTLY how long they take to process... do not think i'm exaggerating... Granted my imac is 2 year old, so it's practically a dinosaur in todays speeds, but screw it, I've got my business set up for efficiency and maybe I'll be as profitable and busy as some of these top pro's... enough said.


----------



## PackLight (Nov 9, 2012)

awinphoto said:


> Meh said:
> 
> 
> > kubelik said:
> ...



I agree with Meh, you should spend a few extra hours a day doing PP on your pictures. That way you will be able to do less work that pays and more of the other Pro's out there will be able to step in and make a few extra dollars on the work you can't get to. Spread the money around I say.


----------



## Policar (Nov 9, 2012)

awinphoto said:


> Meh said:
> 
> 
> > kubelik said:
> ...



Agreed. PP is often a crutch for those who can't get it right in camera. It's like when the red camera came out and everyone flipped over being able to switch WB in post, reframe in post, change exposure in post, etc. and declared it the only usable cinema camera. Aren't those all the things it's your job to do correctly on set?

That said, if there's a sign post or something in your otherwise perfect landscape, it's easier to clone it out than reframe, same goes for blemishes, etc. So overall efficiency and quality rather than dogmatic adherence to one part of the process or the other makes the most sense. No reason to criticize anyone's work flow if they're getting good results efficiently.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Nov 9, 2012)

Although I agree that PP is often a crutch, I still use it and shoot RAW but I am not using it as a crutch. If the option is there for me, I'll do it because I print 8 x 10's or bigger of all of my sports shots and none of us are perfect (although some on here will tell you they are) and so I like to brighten midtones sometimes, sharpen, add a bit of contrast or saturation. You know things like that to make the photo look as good as I can so that the athlete gets the best product I can produce. Another issue is indoor volleyball and basketball where WB and color balance are exceptionally difficult, especially in lower-lit gyms. Since I only do about 30 photos per game, shooting and editing RAW does not slow down my workflow. 

On the other hand, weddings I can see it seriously slowing workflow. That would be the IQ vs. efficiency detail to iron out if you are a wedding photographer.


----------



## awinphoto (Nov 9, 2012)

Policar said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Meh said:
> ...



Agreed for the most part... and dont get me wrong, a sign post, blemish, etc... that stuff I'll take care of... i'm not afraid of photoshop... All i was referring to was as meh suggested that a jpeg converted from a raw was better than a standard jpeg from OOC was that I thought that extra step wasn't necessary for my workflow and what my clients want. Packlight, I do spend a bit in PS editing images that I know will sell... if i see an image that I know will be a hit, and usually i'll switch to raw for that shot, but even if I missed that during shooting and only have a jpeg, I will PS the heck out of it if needed until i've got a salable image. If shot and exposed and balanced correctly and if the settings are similar to how you normally would set your raws, you can get a great base image to jump off on... So i will do what I need to take my photos to the next step, but for me and my workflow, it's just quicker going that route than taking extra steps in raw conversions and typically a client would never tell the difference if I did an OOC jpeg or raw conversion jpeg. I know this is a sensitive topic as it flys in the face of everything everyone has learned, and me, but just keeping it real as a working pro.


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 9, 2012)

Policar said:


> Agreed. PP is often a crutch for those who can't get it right in camera. It's like when the red camera came out and everyone flipped over being able to switch WB in post, reframe in post, change exposure in post, etc. and declared it the only usable cinema camera. Aren't those all the things it's your job to do correctly on set?



I hear that a lot from old-school photogs and I have to agree I don't understand that position. I do understand awinphoto who says that setting wb correctly and shooting jpeg helps him save time and thus helps his business. 

But for other scanarios, "getting it right" on set is certainly admirable and nice, but hardly necessary if you are ready to invest the time to do corrections in post. Often, it sounds more like a delayed ego-trip to me like from people that are not comfortable with the fact that some skills are not as valuable as they were in the analog days. Please don't get me wrong: It's good to learn the basics, but for some the necessity has decreased just like you don't do your balance sheets on a piece of paper w/o calculators nowadays.

If you can reframe a high mp shot in post, why not shoot with a security margin? If you can change exposure in post, why risk blown highlights? If you can set the correct wb later on, why not use awb that usually gets it right? Imho that enables you to put more energy into creativity and (if shooting with people) communication?


----------



## Policar (Nov 9, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> Policar said:
> 
> 
> > Agreed. PP is often a crutch for those who can't get it right in camera. It's like when the red camera came out and everyone flipped over being able to switch WB in post, reframe in post, change exposure in post, etc. and declared it the only usable cinema camera. Aren't those all the things it's your job to do correctly on set?
> ...



Why shoot with a proper composition rather than reframing? Why expose properly?

Because you're a skilled photographer and you can. Of course this holds true more for landscapes and architecture than for street portraits (which is such a strange genre) where a little margin of error might help, though I don't see the point of intentionally doing a bad job just because you know you can improve it. If you're afraid of blowing highlights then an underexposed shot might be the best exposure. And shooting raw in high contrast areas makes a lot of sense. Intentionally underexposing and forcing yourself to do NR and tone mapping or whatever, or framing wrong just so you can frame right later makes no sense to me. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

But the better it is in the first place the better the end result will be. I'm just of the mindset that you should do as much as you can with each step, and more earlier on (either with efficiency or best product possible in mind), rather than falling back on post. Get the right subject, get the right light, get the right composition, enhance it in post--in that order and in order of decreasing priority. My favorite photographers do tons of PP (Adams, Crewdson, etc.), but those whose entire style is PP (Trey Ratcliff, for instance) are usually horrible photographers.


----------



## gilmorephoto (Nov 9, 2012)

@awinphoto = Agreed on your reframing of my post.

As for getting it right vs. time in post... I started out loving RAW not only because I saw more information to work with but also because it rescued shots that I "missed." This made me look better than I was at the time, but it got old pretty quick spending hours in post with a shot that could have been done right (or closer to right) in the camera. So I learned more, practiced, and--now that I shoot better (still learning and improving but much better)--I have more keepers from less shots (no more spray and pray) and I don't spend a lot of time in post. I correct for WB, minor exposure and contrast tweaks, and blemish removal where necessary. That's it. Clean, fast, and consistent results.


----------



## Meh (Nov 9, 2012)

PackLight said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Meh said:
> ...



Not a very useful comment. Allow me to restate my point again. Shooting in RAW does NOT require very much extra time in PP. It gives you the option of having more latitude in PP, it does not force you to edit your photos. You can batch process all the RAW files and end up with the exact same JPEG files with little loss of time/effort. But if out of thousands of images there happens be one or a few that need some editing then having the RAW file is very beneficial.

But hey, if your images are all perfect and require no editing then by all means shoot in JPEG only.


----------



## Meh (Nov 9, 2012)

awinphoto said:


> Meh said:
> 
> 
> > kubelik said:
> ...



Ok sure... if all your images are perfect or good enough and you have absolutely no need to PP then sure it's unnecessary to shoot RAW. I don't disagree with that. But on the presumption that you don't believe you are 100% perfect then there is a chance that a few of those 2000 images could benefit from PP then having the RAW file is advantageous. I further agree that there is a time/effort penalty in your workflow but my contention is that it's minimal and can be easily handled by the computer while you are doing something else thereby mostly eliminating the extra time/effort.


----------



## Meh (Nov 9, 2012)

awinphoto said:


> Policar said:
> 
> 
> > awinphoto said:
> ...



In no way did I suggest that the jpeg converted from RAW was better. I said it was the same and can be produced by the computer in batch mode and therefore requires very little extra time/effort.

You betray your position when you agree that sometimes you have a need to edit an image in PS to get a salable image... if there is ever a need to edit then you are far better off having the RAW file for any editing.


----------



## Policar (Nov 9, 2012)

Meh said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Policar said:
> ...



The clone tool works better with raw than jpeg? Didn't know that. Probably because it's not true.


----------



## helpful (Nov 9, 2012)

One sad fact about shooting raw is the huge number of people with 18-55mm lenses, for example, trying to shoot football games from 200 yards away, or blurry pictures in near darkness of school programs. I've seen countless people who even filled their cards up with a fewer number of raw photos, thinking that was magically making their pictures better, when they would have been better off taking a lot of jpegs and getting lucky on some of them.

Depending on the conditions and type of event, especially if any luck is involved, taking more photos is more critical than getting a few raw frames and filling one's card up.

RAW should be used when there is at least a chance of getting a good photo when pressing the shutter release.
It's a tragedy to me thinking of all the terabytes of raw photos generated when that was not the case.

RAW can't do miracles.


----------



## unfocused (Nov 9, 2012)

Convince you?

Well, if you haven't discovered the beauty of using smart objects you have no idea what you are missing. Open a file in Adobe Camera Raw. Process it the best you can for the main exposure. Open as a smart object. Duplicate as a second smart object. Double click to open in Raw. Process that one to improve upon other areas of the image. Add a layer mask. Paint in the areas you improved upon with the second file. Rinse. Repeat. Rinse. Repeat. as often as necessary. 

Save it as a PSD file preserving all the layers. Six months from now, you can go back and refine or completely rework the image without having to start over from scratch. Plus, you've still got your original RAW file in case you do need to start over again.

It's the difference between performing surgery with a scalpel instead of a meat cleaver.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 9, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> Policar said:
> 
> 
> > Agreed. PP is often a crutch for those who can't get it right in camera.
> ...



+1

Someone skilled in 'the art' (whatever that art is), should become comfortable with new technological advances the that field. Learn to use Photoshop, dammit!

This from someone who dodged and burned when that meant cutting out masks and waving flags under an enlarger.


----------



## PackLight (Nov 9, 2012)

Meh said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Meh said:
> ...



Sure it takes more time. You have to import your files in to LR or whatever convertor you use. You have to select all of them and apply your formulas and do a batch process. Then you have to create a folder separate from your original, then tie your computer up for however long it takes to process these images. An hour or so later you come back and then you can send them to your client. It is all time and if it isn't necessary for someone selling their pictures why make the extra work? No need in it for that person.


----------



## PackLight (Nov 9, 2012)

For the OP he can start the next debate now. Which RAW convertor to use.

Because all RAW conversion programs are not created equal and do not deliver the same results.
Making this decision might be one more reason to stick with JPG.


----------



## Meh (Nov 9, 2012)

PackLight said:


> Sure it takes more time. You have to import your files in to LR or whatever convertor you use. You have to select all of them and apply your formulas and do a batch process. Then you have to create a folder separate from your original, then tie your computer up for however long it takes to process these images. An hour or so later you come back and then you can send them to your client. It is all time and if it isn't necessary for someone selling their pictures why make the extra work? No need in it for that person.



This would be a valid argument if you are using your computer 24/7 and therefore the extra time the computer was "tied up" was an unrecoverable loss of your time or you feel the need to sit there and watch it work. But that is not likely the case. While the computer is doing the imports and batch processing that time can be used for other things.


----------



## PackLight (Nov 9, 2012)

Meh said:


> PackLight said:
> 
> 
> > Sure it takes more time. You have to import your files in to LR or whatever convertor you use. You have to select all of them and apply your formulas and do a batch process. Then you have to create a folder separate from your original, then tie your computer up for however long it takes to process these images. An hour or so later you come back and then you can send them to your client. It is all time and if it isn't necessary for someone selling their pictures why make the extra work? No need in it for that person.
> ...



How about this, I want to go to CR and debate RAW files and my computer is slow and sluggish because it is tied up converting RAW files because I am on a deadline to get the pictures out. Any task is easier if you can finish it one sitting and don't have to go do something and come back to it. Or maybe I want to download the latest movie and my computer is bogged down, I might not even be able to play Pants vs Zombies, what do I do then?

Extra work is extra work, it wouldn't be a problem if I worked for the federal government, from my experience they seem to thrive on meaningless extra work. Those of us that have to be productive do not do extra work unless we have to.


----------



## Meh (Nov 9, 2012)

PackLight said:


> Meh said:
> 
> 
> > PackLight said:
> ...



A little stubborn and defensive? I already conceded that if you are already using your computer 24/7 then there could be some loss of productivity, I just don't think that's very likely for most... but sure if you need to play games or waste time getting defensive on CR then you have a point. Of course, if you're doing those things then I don't accept you're on a tight deadline to get images out to your client.

Anyone can dream up hypothetical situations where the "computer time" to batch process is a loss of productivity but it's just not broadly applicable. Even awin's example of a 2000 image library from a wedding shoot is a weak case because you would not likely have a 24-hour turn around on a wedding so the batch could be run overnight. A commercial shoot with a 24-hour turnaround would not involve thousands of images, maybe a few hundred and in those cases you'd likely be editing anyway so need RAW which Awin stated himself.


----------



## PackLight (Nov 10, 2012)

Meh said:


> PackLight said:
> 
> 
> > Meh said:
> ...



I didn't dream that one up. I shoot in RAW most of the time, sometimes I think I should have just done it in JPG because I am doing very little or nothing to the final pictures. 

If I am at work the computer there is so slow it makes it hard to do other work while it is running. The pictures are for myself not a client so there is no deadline, but if I am sitting at my desk twiddling my thumbs because I don't have a computer I am not getting anything done. Here at home I just grab the lap top and do what I want while the computer is converting. It is annoying having your computer tied up.

But I guess I could have dreamed it up, while I was waiting on the computer to finish I could take a nap.


----------



## Patrick (Nov 10, 2012)

In many ways this illustrates the difference between (some) working professional photographers and amateurs. Some people just do photography to earn money - that makes them professional in the literal meaning of the word. Some want to achieve excellence (within whatever ability level they have been blessed) - that makes them Amateurs (they do it because they love to make images, from the Latin verb Amo: to Love).
Some are doubly blessed and are able to both make the images they love AND make a living from doing so - they are Professionals.
Just my 2c worth, YMMV  . I noticed that @awinphoto is too busy to able to spare the time to update his business website for 2 years - he certainly won't want to waste his time doing RAW to JPEG conversions.


----------



## bycostello (Nov 10, 2012)

get it right 100% in camera and you don't need raw....


----------



## victorwol (Nov 10, 2012)

bycostello said:


> get it right 100% in camera and you don't need raw....



Really??? so you are right with a nasty 8 bits JPG? You don't print right?


----------



## victorwol (Nov 10, 2012)

RobT said:


> Now, I had always known there were distinct advantages to RAW, but hadn't thought about it much until recently since I was only a hobbyist on a Rebel XT for five years. I upgraded to a 50D two years ago and tried RAW once or twice but still didn't have much knowledge about photography.
> 
> Now, I've been doing photography professionally for several months, have learned a crazy amount, and am pushing to get the absolute best out of my 50D until I can save up for the MkIII.
> 
> ...



For me there is one big thing for shooting in RAW. Not if you get it right or not from camera, JPG is only 8 bits, that means only 256 shades of gray, photos of products for example with very soft gradients on the BG on gray, would be full of banding at the moment of printing. Cant compete against the 14 bits of the raw files.


----------



## Waterloo (Nov 10, 2012)

I didn't see any mention of Michael Tapes' "Instant JPEG from Raw". It's a free download for Mac and Windows. 

http://michaeltapesdesign.com/instant-jpeg-from-raw.html

Just shoot in raw only like you always should. If you need JPGs just right click on the folder and IJFR will extract the full size JPG that is embedded in the raw file. It gives you the best of both worlds. You're already shooting a JPG anyway, why save it again as another file on your memory card? And, when you get that once in a lifetime shot you've got the raw file to work from.

Myself, it is so easy to configure presets in the Library > Export module of Lightroom that it really isn't necessary. My opinion of JPGs, I only use them for E-mailing and display of my portfolio on my iPad. I guess I do put up a few here on this website!!!


----------



## bycostello (Nov 10, 2012)

victorwol said:


> bycostello said:
> 
> 
> > get it right 100% in camera and you don't need raw....
> ...



i shoot raw because i don't get it right... and that is the only reason to shoot raw....

as i said, get it right and you can print as big as you like with a jpeg... i know lots of pros that do just that... including one that had a front cover with a point and shoot camera jpeg!


----------



## RLPhoto (Nov 10, 2012)

This is a Minolta Dimage 7. This camera was released in 2001 with a 5MP sensor. It has RAW shooting capabilitys.

With modern programs like LR4, I was able to squeeze my Maximum IQ out of this camera that JPEG could never do. If you shoot RAW, Your files will only get better with time with better software.


----------



## RLPhoto (Nov 10, 2012)

more.


----------



## victorwol (Nov 10, 2012)

bycostello said:


> victorwol said:
> 
> 
> > bycostello said:
> ...



Sure, you can print out of a GIF too.. You can get nice photos printed from an iPhone. If the content is good, you can print anything. RAW will not give you more size, I'm talking about color depth. Shadows and highlitghts recovery, things you can't get out of a JPG and not related to get it right but about creative decisions you are free to make later. You are not going to get that out of a JPG or as good as you can later edit it from RAW. 

Situations with mixed light where you need different temperatures on the same frame, or parts where the dynamic range of 8 bits of a JPG just can't resolve an a RAW file can..

Points of view of course, but I believe shooting JPG is wasting potential. Storage is cheap now.


----------



## bycostello (Nov 10, 2012)

ok, i accept that with a raw image you can 'squeeze' more out of it on a technical basis... but are you taking a photograph or creating a digital image or art?

you don't look at Bresson's work and go if only the picture was sharper, had more dynamic range etc etc... it is what the picture evokes that counts...

the plot of a movie doesn't improve on a 1080 tv vs a 720 tv... a good movie is still a good movie whether you can see each hair strand or not... 

and the difference between jpg and raw ain't that much....


----------



## bycostello (Nov 10, 2012)

> Points of view of course, but I believe shooting JPG is wasting potential. Storage is cheap now.



time isn't though, as a wedding photographer i supply 100s of images to the client and so simply don't have time to sit and edit each image beyond a few minutes... on the other side of the tracks though I have a friend who works on Vougue and other high end titles who spend a week in post on one image.

so i guess ultimately it is what and how many images you are taking about and their ultimate end use...


----------



## rpt (Nov 10, 2012)

bycostello said:


> the plot of a movie doesn't improve on a 1080 tv vs a 720 tv... a good movie is still a good movie whether you can see each hair strand or not...


True, but stills and movies are different species. One can stare at a still for a looooooooooooong time. Hence the attributes of a still are way different. You can get away with JPEG artifact like things in a movie scene but not in a still - my opinion...


----------



## victorwol (Nov 10, 2012)

bycostello said:


> > Points of view of course, but I believe shooting JPG is wasting potential. Storage is cheap now.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The fact that is RAW it does not mean it need to be edited, only that if you need to, you can edit beyond JPG can take. And you can always extract the full JPG out of the raw, which is incredibly fast. 

But sure, if JPG is enough for you and cover all your needs, then more than fine. 

The only time I shoot RAW+JPG is when I do timelapses to have something to playback quickly.


----------



## rpt (Nov 10, 2012)

bycostello said:


> > Points of view of course, but I believe shooting JPG is wasting potential. Storage is cheap now.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Or if you had the luxury (or ability) to set up lighting...


----------



## victorwol (Nov 10, 2012)

rpt said:


> bycostello said:
> 
> 
> > the plot of a movie doesn't improve on a 1080 tv vs a 720 tv... a good movie is still a good movie whether you can see each hair strand or not...
> ...



Some people can't appreciate the difference between a NTSC video with stereo sound from 60 FPS out of a 70mm film with 10 channels of audio of an IMAX. 

Of course, a bad movie will still be a bad movie, but I enjoy a lot more the experience of a good plot on a good immersive experience of a 7.1 THX sound on 70" plasma than on the screen of my iPhone.


----------



## rpt (Nov 10, 2012)

victorwol said:


> rpt said:
> 
> 
> > bycostello said:
> ...


I agree, but that is not my point.


----------



## V8Beast (Nov 10, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> But for other scanarios, "getting it right" on set is certainly admirable and nice, but hardly necessary if you are ready to invest the time to do corrections in post. Often, it sounds more like a delayed ego-trip to me like from people that are not comfortable with the fact that some skills are not as valuable as they were in the analog days. Please don't get me wrong: It's good to learn the basics, but for some the necessity has decreased just like you don't do your balance sheets on a piece of paper w/o calculators nowadays.



I'll take it one step further. Post processing isn't only for people who can't get it right in camera. When the industry was first transitioning from film to digital, I knew a lot of pros who prided themselves in nailing the shot the first time. They should have, as this should be the goal in most situations. However, the problem is that they also refused to refine their post processing skills. Guess what? Many of those same pros are now out of business, or are struggling to adapt as quickly as they can. IMHO, to excel in your field these days, you have to have both great photography technique and great post processing technique. 

In addition to correcting mistakes, post processing allows creating images that simply aren't possible straight out of camera. Layering multiple exposures together isn't just for HDR. It also allows photographers to achieve results with very simple lighting or rigging equipment that was once only possible with very elaborate and expensive truckloads of gear. 

This blog, from a fellow car photog who's far more talented than I, puts things into perspective:

http://seanklingelhoefer.com/blog/?p=109


----------



## MarkII (Nov 10, 2012)

PackLight said:


> Sure it takes more time. You have to import your files in to LR or whatever convertor you use. You have to select all of them and apply your formulas and do a batch process. Then you have to create a folder separate from your original, then tie your computer up for however long it takes to process these images. An hour or so later you come back and then you can send them to your client. It is all time and if it isn't necessary for someone selling their pictures why make the extra work? No need in it for that person.



I don't understand this perspective at all - it simply is not that hard.

I have a nearly four year old Apple laptop, which is still a stock model aside from having had a replacement internal hard drive and update to the latest OS. Both JPEG and RAW import to Lightroom at pretty much the same speed, and never slow enough to be an issue. RAW files are usable almost everywhere on the Mac - you can preview them in the Finder, for example. 'Developing' a RAW file takes milliseconds rather than minutes.

The import process in Lightroom is pretty much transparent, and you do not need to configure anything. In the simplest case, just install Lightroom and plug in your camera. The software will pop-up a dialogue asking if you want to import all photographs other than duplicates. Click 'import' and it will import the images and apply sensible default development settings. Done.

Extracting images to send to a client (or upload to Flickr or whatever) is just as easy, the only difference being that you need to select the images to output and select 'export' rather than selecting the images on the computer and copying them. Same effort in both cases, except that Lightroom can also *optionally* change file dimensions, compression level, watermarking and metadata automatically for each exported image.

I would argue that shooting JPEG in camera is much more fiddly than using Lightroom - because of the bewildering array of JPEG options to select from, the fact that they are usually different between cameras, and the fact that if I get it wrong in camera I would need a time machine to fix it 

There are real reasons to prefer JPEG over RAW: burst speed and length (sports), easy of immediate transfer (journalism - or anyone trying to use the images directly on an iPad...). However, if speed and difficulty of handling the files is a major issue then there is probably something very wrong with your computer/software setup...


----------



## krjc (Nov 10, 2012)

To the OP, I say why? If you are happy with jpg all the more power to you. Even my gf doesn't shoot jpg anymore!


----------



## Greatland (Nov 10, 2012)

Another reason to do it is because memory is very cheap today and unlike in the past when a 32G card cost you an arm and a leg to day you can get this stuff for a very modest price.....


----------



## Ew (Nov 10, 2012)

What started out as an experiment with a 5D3 and an EyeFi card turned into a workflow. 
Raw to CF, JPG (medium) to eyeFi SD, with transfers going to a mini w/ plasma tv / projector output. 

Ironically, the jpgs at the end of the event are what's kept. But it bread to be able to go back to the Raws. 

My2c


----------



## ScottyP (Nov 10, 2012)

Shoot in RAW. 

If you don't, no one will ever love you, and your doggy will die.

Convinced?


----------



## TexPhoto (Nov 10, 2012)

Jesus, convince yourself. I am so sick of hearing about RAW. It's better for most things, you are retarded if you don't shoot RAW... Unless it's sports, or journalism and you need the jpgs in a hurry. or something. 

I do not understand why people need their hand held on this. Or alternatively need to wear it on a T-shirt. Who cares! What if everything was this way? Should I use good lenses or bad... which is better? Focus well or not? which to choose?


----------



## rpt (Nov 10, 2012)

ScottyP said:


> Shoot in RAW.
> 
> If you don't, no one will ever love you, and your doggy will die.
> 
> Convinced?


What if he has a cat?


----------



## wockawocka (Nov 10, 2012)

Buy a bigger card and shoot both.


----------



## CanonLITA (Nov 10, 2012)

You should convince me not to..


----------



## serendipidy (Nov 10, 2012)

> rpt said:
> 
> 
> > ScottyP said:
> ...



Cats have 9 lives ;D


----------



## Zv (Nov 10, 2012)

Sorry late to the party. 

Jpeg sure has advantages for the wedding shooter and sports togs who shoot in burst. Most likely these guys can get their exposure bang on. I can't, so I need RAW, not only to fix exposure issues but WB too, which often needs corrected. 

Anyway, to speed up my post processing I first of all delete as I go in camera whenever I have a moment. 

After backing up data on my laptop I use windows gallery (Bridge is also good for this task) to view the images and move the GOOD images that I will process into a separate folder. lets say 30-50 good ones. Import those to lightroom. 

I used to import all the RAW files into LR but I got lazy and didn't clean house and ended up with loads of junk. 

Sorry if I'm repeating what others have said already, eight pages are a lot to go through!


----------



## rpt (Nov 10, 2012)

serendipidy said:


> > rpt said:
> >
> >
> > > ScottyP said:
> ...


Mine has used up one. So I am taking no chances and shooting in RAW


----------



## Phoenix_Canon (Nov 10, 2012)

TexPhoto said:


> ... I am so sick of hearing about RAW. It's better for most things, you are retarded if you don't shoot RAW... Unless it's sports, or journalism and you need the jpgs in a hurry. or something.
> 
> ....



Talk to one of my favorite photographers at the Arizona Republic and he'll tell you why he shoots raw and not jpg. No other way than raw.


----------



## Waterloo (Nov 10, 2012)

wockawocka said:


> Buy a bigger card and shoot both.



You're already shooting both every time you shoot a raw image. See Reply #89. You really don't need to save the JPG a second time!!!


----------



## PackLight (Nov 10, 2012)

MarkII said:


> PackLight said:
> 
> 
> > Sure it takes more time. You have to import your files in to LR or whatever convertor you use. You have to select all of them and apply your formulas and do a batch process. Then you have to create a folder separate from your original, then tie your computer up for however long it takes to process these images. An hour or so later you come back and then you can send them to your client. It is all time and if it isn't necessary for someone selling their pictures why make the extra work? No need in it for that person.
> ...



You took five paragraphs to explain the process. You are right, if a Pro takes a picture and sells it immediately and doesn't need to archive a photo to storage. If his client is immensely happy with the JPG images he produces then this Pro should go ahead and make all his pictures RAW just because it is the better thing to do.

By the way, I have four Mac's in the house. Not even the Mac Pro which is just a few years old can process a RAW image in milliseconds. Depending on JPG size 4 to 7 seconds is the norm. Well over an hour for 1000 images. Maybe I should be asking what Mac you have if it can process a full size RAW file from a 5D in a few milliseconds.


----------



## gilmorephoto (Nov 10, 2012)

2008 MacBook Pro + Aperture and RAW files take 2 - 7 seconds each to "develop." On 2011 MacBook Pro with SSD, no more than 2 seconds. As I said before, I don't do heavy processing so YMMV.


----------



## Ryan_W (Nov 10, 2012)

_Especially_ if you have only been taking your photography seriously for a few months, you should be shooting in RAW.

1.) You're likely just finding your internal eye. A year from now, you will look back and find that the photo you thought was garbage is actually pretty remarkable, your RAW file will let you print it full size and correct it far better than a JPG will.

2. RAW is the raw data from your camera. Shooting in RAW will force you to be a better photographer, because all the easy-fix bells and whistles like Auto Lighting Optimizer don't work with RAW. Shooting in RAW shows you what mistakes you're making and doesn't let you get away with mistakes.

Learning to shoot, in my opinion, is only one part of the greater ecosystem of photography workflow. Learning how to edit your files and what to do with the images is the larger challenge. By shooting in RAW (or converting to DNG) you will be able to come back to these files in 5 or 10 years when you've accumulated a huge amount of knowledge and tweak them to your particular style, fixing exposure, contrast, and noise at a far greater level then you will with JPGs.

The "pro" photographers aren't just shooting photos and handing them off. They're manipulating their work, creating projects, and creating value far beyond just a simple photographic capture. When I shoot, I charge clients a matching hour for post processing for every hour of shooting. That's how important post processing is to me, and that's why I always shoot in RAW.

If file size is a problem, yes, you're going to have to boot for a new hard drive. You can get a terabyte for $100 these days. Another option is to get critical about your work and trash anything that isn't top notch. In my first year of shooting professionally I produced 12,000 photographs and in the end I kept 6,000 for my personal portfolio and passed maybe 1,000 on to clients. The rest were trash.


----------



## MarkII (Nov 10, 2012)

PackLight said:


> By the way, I have four Mac's in the house. Not even the Mac Pro which is just a few years old can process a RAW image in milliseconds. Depending on JPG size 4 to 7 seconds is the norm. Well over an hour for 1000 images. Maybe I should be asking what Mac you have if it can process a full size RAW file from a 5D in a few milliseconds.


Well, ms is an exaggeration - but it is not seconds either. I can preview 5DII CR2 files in the finder at full-size without significant delay (C2Duo 17" 2.8GHz with a dual HDD configuration using a 7200RPM mechanical disk plus SSD; 8GB RAM). It is difficult to gauge performance in Lightroom directly because of its caching behaviour, but I don't see a whole lot of difference between large hi-resolution JPEGs and the equivalent RAW files.

I used to have serious problems with Lightroom catalogue performance, but these disappeared with LR4 and moving both the LR catalogue and cache files to the SSD. Perceived performance in Lightroom seems often down to it generating large preview files or paging. Another problem that will affect performance with imports is RAM size - even with 8GB it is possible for LR to trigger paging due to lack of memory if other apps are open (esp PS).

I might try benchmarking the Apple RAW converter, as I have written some software that uses it to batch process RAW files in the past.


----------



## mb66energy (Nov 10, 2012)

In data acquisition I have one rule: NEVER ever throw away the original data.

RAW is original data with the full information of what the camera (sensor + lens) are capable to record.

1. More DR (at lower ISOs, depending on camera) so you are free to change contrast, black-point/white-point, color curves, color temperature without loss or with very little loss. 
2. Think about the invention of a new algorithm to convert RAW files into other formats like JPEG with enhanced quality - with JPEGs only you loose.

That's why I love my 40D much over the 600D: clean 10MPix raws with reasonable size instead of 18MPix raws with 1.5 times the size but not substantially more information.


----------



## Patrick (Nov 10, 2012)

Ryan_W said:


> ... In my first year of shooting professionally I produced 12,000 photographs and in the end I kept 6,000 for my personal portfolio and passed maybe 1,000 on to clients. The rest were trash.


Ansel Adams said that producing 12 good images made a good year (his definition of a good image was most certainly different to that of most mere mortal photographers!). When you shoot 12,000 to 20,000 images in a year (ain't digital great!) the really difficult part can be finding the 12!


----------



## PackLight (Nov 10, 2012)

MarkII said:


> PackLight said:
> 
> 
> > By the way, I have four Mac's in the house. Not even the Mac Pro which is just a few years old can process a RAW image in milliseconds. Depending on JPG size 4 to 7 seconds is the norm. Well over an hour for 1000 images. Maybe I should be asking what Mac you have if it can process a full size RAW file from a 5D in a few milliseconds.
> ...



Viewing is not a problem, unless I am opening hundreds of photos at once then any of my computers may slow down if I am opening enough. I was only referring to converting the RAW file to JPG.

I just tested the wife's laptop, it is the oldest and slowest computer we have. With DPP doing a full file conversion of a 1D IV file, doing JPG at full size with LR, I did 10 pictures and averaged 7 seconds a piece. With DPP it was averaging 15 seconds a piece. I tested on two different sets of pictures to see if the results were the same. I have tested the other computers, the iMac's I bought last year were the fastest at just over 4 seconds a piece. It is the latest shelf iMac version, I bought it the day they did the last upgrades.

If you save your files as smaller sizes the speed can increase dramatically.


----------



## 1255 (Nov 10, 2012)

Standard said:


> > As for storage of RAW files. I always archive my original RAW files instead of converted JPEGS onto DVDs when I am done _(What's the point of shooting in RAW when in the end you only having JPEGs to refer to?)_. Simply backing and organizing them onto discs solve the storage issue. You can also, as some have mentioned, buy external hard drives to store them. Remember though, archiving files onto DVDs is preferred as opposed to storing files onto hard drives which will corrupt files over time.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry for the change of topic here, but Standard, or anyone else, can you tell me more about external hard drives corrupting files over time, or direct me to a good resource for more information? I actually wasn't aware of this. Any comments would be much appreciated. Thanks all.


----------



## 1255 (Nov 10, 2012)

As for the topic at hand, I say, to each, his or her own. Everyone knows how they work best, or what their clients do or do not want, and they should work accordingly. 

To the OP, I say shoot in RAW and see how it impacts your workflow. If you like it, stick with it. 

Personally, I shoot only in RAW and always will. In my own experience, RAW files contain more information, giving you more to work with when you need it. 

I don't mind if it sometimes means more time spent in post. Photography is my passion, every single aspect of it, staging, shooting, PP, printing, all of it. The world melts away and I'm a happy person.


----------



## 1255 (Nov 10, 2012)

mb66energy said:


> In data acquisition I have one rule: NEVER ever throw away the original data.
> 
> RAW is original data with the full information of what the camera (sensor + lens) are capable to record.
> 
> ...



+1


----------



## 1255 (Nov 10, 2012)

Patrick said:


> Ansel Adams said that producing 12 good images made a good year



and finally, +1


----------



## rpt (Nov 11, 2012)

mb66energy said:


> In data acquisition I have one rule: NEVER ever throw away the original data.


+1

Unless you don't want the data...


----------



## verysimplejason (Nov 11, 2012)

rpt said:


> mb66energy said:
> 
> 
> > In data acquisition I have one rule: NEVER ever throw away the original data.
> ...



+1. Also, no DATA is irrelevant. You may not want or need it today, but you'll want it tomorrow. (e.g., DLO in DPP, try it with your very old pictures).


----------



## TexPhoto (Nov 11, 2012)

Phoenix_Canon said:


> TexPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > ... * I am so sick of hearing about RAW. *
> ...



When I talk to other photographers I talk about photography, not about thier file choice.


----------



## rpt (Nov 11, 2012)

TexPhoto said:


> Phoenix_Canon said:
> 
> 
> > TexPhoto said:
> ...


 good use of time!


----------



## verysimplejason (Nov 11, 2012)

rpt said:


> TexPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenix_Canon said:
> ...



Shooting raw or jpeg doesn't really matter. If that's what you want then go ahead but I'm shooting in raw. Each to his own... I just want to have more headroom in case I make a mistake because I know I'm not perfect but I aspire for a near perfect photograph.


----------



## TexPhoto (Nov 12, 2012)

verysimplejason said:


> rpt said:
> 
> 
> > TexPhoto said:
> ...



(In traditional internet forum style, I will take a contrary position but then paraphrase your statement) I completely disagree. I think the photography is much more important than the file format. I shoot RAW because I find the end product is better, but it is a small part of the big picture. Bla, Bla, bla.... RAW is life... Bla

Actually I am just going for the record on embedded quotes. It's like getting the last word in on a fight with your wife.


----------



## pakosouthpark (Nov 12, 2012)

TexPhoto said:


> Phoenix_Canon said:
> 
> 
> > TexPhoto said:
> ...



that is because they shoot RAW already.. and know that everyone that has the passion for it will shoot raw


----------



## rpt (Nov 12, 2012)

TexPhoto said:


> verysimplejason said:
> 
> 
> > rpt said:
> ...


Is there a point in trying to get the last word with the wife? 

On this thread feel free to get your last word in


----------



## sandymandy (Nov 12, 2012)




----------



## infared (Nov 12, 2012)

This thread is silly.
If you need to be "convinced"...you just don't get it.
Raw = Serious
Jpeg = Not Serious
End of discussion............


----------



## AmbientLight (Nov 12, 2012)

infared said:


> This thread is silly.


+100 on that statement!



infared said:


> If you need to be "convinced"...you just don't get it.
> Raw = Serious
> Jpeg = Not Serious
> End of discussion............


Then again we should not oversimplify matters. There are valid reasons to shoot JPEG sometimes, so it is not all bad. I would not qualify it generally as not being serious. I would like to rephrase this in the following way:
RAW = Shooting slow or with the option of making the most of every shot you take
JPEG = Shooting lots of stuff you have to process fast and you don't want to pp on it.

End of discussion: Not likely...


----------



## infared (Nov 12, 2012)

AmbientLight said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > This thread is silly.
> ...



OK...I will agree:

Jpegs for junk photography.
Raw for keepers.
Still slices the same way that I stated above, no?


----------



## alipaulphotography (Nov 12, 2012)

Distinct lack of examples to back up peoples words...

An example for you:

Straight Out of Camera: http://alipaul.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/SOOC.png

Edited Jpg: http://alipaul.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/jpg1.png

Edited RAW: http://alipaul.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/RAW.png

Exactly the same editing tweaks done. RAW you don't have to worry as much about exposure or white balance.


----------



## PackLight (Nov 12, 2012)

infared said:


> This thread is silly.
> If you need to be "convinced"...you just don't get it.
> Raw = Serious
> Jpeg = Not Serious
> End of discussion............



The progression is more like this
JPEG for someone starting out wanting to get serious
RAW+JPEG for someone who just started out that has gotten serious.
RAW for someone who started not long ago and knows everything there is to know (by their own admission) and is serious.
RAW or/ JPEG for someone with a little more skill who knows when each should be and can be used and uses the one most advantagous for their situation.

Becuase the discussion ended there are those that may be stuck at RAW only and never move foward in their photography.


----------



## And-Rew (Nov 12, 2012)

infared said:


> OK...I will agree:
> 
> Jpegs for junk photography.
> Raw for keepers.
> Still slices the same way that I stated above, no?



I'll bet all those journalistic, news togs and paps just love you. 

To my knowledge they all/ mostly shoot in jpg because it's quicker and a more compact file size to send over to editors for the time conscious story. Such time sensitive material can not sit around waiting for the tog to get home and do a bit of processing - on top of which there is much issue with making sure images presented have not been manipulated and processed.

In truth, RAW and jpg both have their places in photography, and it's not about experience or kit being used.
It's about preference of the tog, convenience for image management and suitably for the type of shot being captured.

I always shoot RAW now - but the X-Pro 1 captures images in RAW and one of its many flavours of film emulated jpg modes, which of course is what that camera is so liked for!


----------



## friedmud (Nov 12, 2012)

For me:

RAW for everything except high speed action. The reason is two-fold:

1. When you are machine gunning you really will fill your cards / computer quickly wit RAW.
2. Buffer size greatly increases with jpeg

To accomplish this, I actually have my "fast action" custom mode set to jpeg...

Other than that... There are no other valid reasons to shoot jpeg (for me).


----------



## Gadger (Nov 12, 2012)

How about this way then

RAW for men
JPEG for boys


(please note joke)


----------



## PackLight (Nov 12, 2012)

Gadger said:


> How about this way then
> 
> RAW for men
> JEPG for boys
> ...



What do women and girls shoot then?


----------



## Gadger (Nov 12, 2012)

PackLight said:


> Gadger said:
> 
> 
> > How about this way then
> ...




Well that's another story ;D


----------



## bdunbar79 (Nov 12, 2012)

I suppose the guy at Sports Illustrated shooting JPG because the photos need to go to website live is shooting junk. You shoot in RAW for one set of circumstances and shoot in JPG for another and neither has to do with quality/junk photography. That is a gross misinterpretation of their uses. I've had to shoot JPG at sports before and of course I've shot RAW at sports before. To say one is better than the other in all situations is assanine. 

Personally I shoot RAW because I like to have it. Yes I've shot sports before and racked up 500 RAW files. I simply picked the best 50-70 and deleted the rest. It wasn't that hard. And no I don't use RAW as a crutch, I use it because I can and it's available to me. It's called technology.


----------



## RLPhoto (Nov 12, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> I suppose the guy at Sports Illustrated shooting JPG because the photos need to go to website live is shooting junk. You shoot in RAW for one set of circumstances and shoot in JPG for another and neither has to do with quality/junk photography. That is a gross misinterpretation of their uses. I've had to shoot JPG at sports before and of course I've shot RAW at sports before. To say one is better than the other in all situations is assanine.
> 
> Personally I shoot RAW because I like to have it. Yes I've shot sports before and racked up 500 RAW files. I simply picked the best 50-70 and deleted the rest. It wasn't that hard. And no I don't use RAW as a crutch, I use it because I can and it's available to me. It's called technology.



To My knowledge, Sport illustrated Photogs shoot RAW because they will crop the crap out of the pictures later.


----------



## RobT (Nov 12, 2012)

ScottyP said:


> Shoot in RAW.
> 
> If you don't, no one will ever love you, and your doggy will die.
> 
> Convinced?



I have a dog. I don't want him to die. 
Thanks for convincing me!

To anyone else here to answer my question and not add wood to the fire, It didn't take me long to see the benefits of RAW. For some reason I thought shooting in RAW would add an extra step to my workflow. Using Lightroom, it doesn't, save for slightly longer processing times, which is more than worth it for the results I'm seeing.


----------



## K-amps (Nov 12, 2012)

RobT said:


> Convince me to shoot in RAW



So that you can wear Jared Polin's "I shoot RAW" T-Shirts.


----------



## V8Beast (Nov 12, 2012)

K-amps said:


> RobT said:
> 
> 
> > Convince me to shoot in RAW
> ...



Dumb question: Are these shirts intended for people that proudly exclaim the format in which they shoot, or is it meant to mock RAW shooters who think they're better photographers just because they shoot RAW?


----------



## rpt (Nov 13, 2012)

RobT said:


> ScottyP said:
> 
> 
> > Shoot in RAW.
> ...


Great! Enjoy the flexibility. And (my English teacher would be dismayed that I started the sentence with this word) if you need JPGs in a hurry, shoot both. Whenever I shoot both, I write both to the CF card.


----------



## AmbientLight (Nov 13, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> K-amps said:
> 
> 
> > RobT said:
> ...



I must admit having similar thoughts. Perhaps those t-shirts can be used for both, can't they?

It just depends on who is in the t-shirt.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Nov 14, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> K-amps said:
> 
> 
> > RobT said:
> ...



Imagine those who have a D800 and shoot RAW? Now that is hardcore.


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 14, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> Imagine those who have a D800 and shoot RAW? Now that is hardcore.



Not quite, real hardcore is having *backups* of all these raw shots, too.


----------



## V8Beast (Nov 15, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> V8Beast said:
> 
> 
> > K-amps said:
> ...



Having a D800 and shooting RAW? I can only imagine how many woman that would get you ;D


----------



## Ryan_W (Nov 15, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> K-amps said:
> 
> 
> > RobT said:
> ...



Not a dumb question. Very dumb t-shirt.


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 15, 2012)

Ryan_W said:


> Not a dumb question. Very dumb t-shirt.



I wondered about the same thing when I recently saw it - but it isn't dumb at all because all publicity is good publicity, he is remembered and talked about :-o


----------

