Comments on: Why Aren’t You Shooting in RAW!?

By: Laura Dye

Laura Dye — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 19:27:04 +0000

super-helpful explanation of the difference between RAW and JPG. http://thephotoletariat.com/why-arent-you-shooting-in-raw/

By: Kodakero

Kodakero — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 22:52:56 +0000

I guess it all boils down to the purpose of your photography. I shoot news and it's almost insane for us to shoot in raw but there are times that I was compelled to do so. These were times that I needed to squeeze every pixel out of my 5DII to make an insanely small crop out of the photo since my lens and position didn't allow me to have a better shot. So I guess RAW wins the argument of squeezing the most out of your camera. Nothing beats shooting perfectly as possible to minimize post processing instead of depending on RAW to correct your mistakes.

By: Roy

Roy — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 07:19:28 +0000

RAW is always better, period. There are no arguments. More data is better than less. Once you throw away data, you can never get it back. And hard disks are cheap.

That said, *shooting in RAW* is not always better because of technology limitations. I'd say this will change someday, but I know it won't. I very rarely shoot non-RAW, but I do it a few times a year.

By: Leashed Living

Leashed Living — Sat, 10 Jul 2010 07:02:55 +0000

Why aren't you shooting in RAW? http://bit.ly/bfdRH0

By: Justin Lee

Justin Lee — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 19:17:05 +0000

Raw vs JPEG http://bit.ly/c2GKVQ via @petapixel

By: Simple Tips For Using Your Histogram For Correct Exposure *by Dan Bailey « Jase's Blog

Thu, 24 Jun 2010 04:06:50 +0000

[...] To put this into practice, when you’re making your test shots and fine tuning your exposures, adjust so that your histogram fills up with as much information as possible towards the right side of the graph without clipping. This will ensure that you preserve as much color data as possible and get the best signal to noise ratio and the least amount of pixelation, or color distortion in your image. You can also apply this method when you’re adjusting the exposure slider in your image processing software if you’re shooting in RAW. [...]

By: Dan Bailey

Dan Bailey — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 01:32:04 +0000

Mike- great discussion. I never said that photographers should ALWAYS shoot RAW, only that they SHOULD shoot and learn how to process RAW images. If shooting JPEG works for you most of the time, then that's great, but if photographers want to achieve maximum quality, tonal range and color accuracy, whether they have a perfectly calibrated monitor or not, then shooting RAW and using the software to process those files is the best way to do that.

You're right, saving each and every pixel may not always be the best option, but if it's my image, I want to be the one to make that decision. Call me a control freak, but since my images are competing with those of other top photographers in the industry and with the millions of images in my stock agency files, I want to make sure that I can produce the VERY best work possible. My livelyhood depends on it.

And again, since data storage is so cheap, if you can establish an efficient workflow, why wouldn't you want that? For my own imagery, except for the occasional snapshot and non critical document shot, I shoot ALL my images in RAW.

By: bvcphoto

bvcphoto — Mon, 07 Jun 2010 20:20:47 +0000

My camera has a 4-frame maximum buffer in RAW vs. 8 in JPG and shoots 1FPS slower. So I should always shoot RAW? Really?

By: Johnny Simon

Johnny Simon — Mon, 07 Jun 2010 19:23:07 +0000

I’ll play devil’s advocate and ask, why do you need to shoot so fast? In my own opinion, I think photographer are amused with/ rely on motor drives far too much. So much so that they’re anticipating less and hammering their shutters more and more. Not calling you out as a photographer at all, I’m not familiar with your work, but why sacrifice image quality for quantity?

By: Mike Panic

Mike Panic — Mon, 07 Jun 2010 01:03:57 +0000

Dan - it's not only convenient, it's better for a vast majority of photographers who don't spend the money on a quality monitor and do hardware calibrations on a regular basis. To be honest, I work in the photo industry, do you know how many people have no clue what the kelvin of the working environment of the room they are in is, much less how to color / contrast adjust their monitor properly, much less know that it even needs to be or should be done?

12 vs. 14bit is also subjective to where and how you will be displaying your work. I'm willing to bet that like most photographers 90% or more of your work is never displayed anywhere besides a computer monitor, making your editing subjective to how the viewers monitor is calibrated. Furthermore, the dynamic range of printers, silver halide or inkjet isn't fairly narrow.

Extreme highlights and deep shadows are also not a bad thing. Yes, in the film world you could dodge and burn in the darkroom, and you could use creative filters like the Cokin graduated filters to help while shooting, but in the end, to represent something accurate or even artistic interpretations doesn't always require saving every white or black pixel.

The first line of the article is the one that I most strongly disagree with. I've been getting work published in magazines and the web for 10 years now, starting with film and moving to digital. I used to shoot in RAW and for certain situations, still do, however it's not ALWAYS the answer like you seem to imply. Knowing what your output is going to be should help you determine what your choice should be, likewise, properly exposing and shooting is key, not relying on the "I'll fix it in post" mentality of so many of today's sloppy photoshop-photographers.

Let me be clear, I like RAW and I use it from time to time, but straight up telling me that it's the ONLY way to shoot is misleading.