is RAW a crutch to photography?


d2xpeter

Deregistered
Dec 6, 2012
1,283
4
0
55
singapore
#1
I am talking from a hobbyist point of view.
Are we degrading of image capturing skills with over reliance on the safety net provided?

For Pro photog, they need that safety net.
But for hobbyist, part of the enjoyment and "kick" is the challenge in "capturing" better image. I am talking about the capturing portion, not the post processing.
 

Octarine

Moderator
Staff member
Jan 3, 2008
12,541
33
48
Pasir Ris
#2
I am talking about the capturing portion, not the post processing.
Where is the image format here? Don't think in black and white, don't step into the trap of so-called purists who condemn any additional click to an image other than the shutter pressing. Whether you capture an image in JPG or RAW depends on many factors. Use what brings you to the target. Leave the rest to the esoteric folks ...
 

d2xpeter

Deregistered
Dec 6, 2012
1,283
4
0
55
singapore
#3
From a hobbyist point of view.

My concern is that if we rely too much on RAW, we might kill the thrill during the capturing part, and shift all the fun portion to the post processing. And photography would become just post processing?
Though the post processing portion is important too, worried that there will come a day when hobbyist just use the automatic mode just to capture RAW and then just worry about the post processing. LOL
 

giantcanopy

Senior Member
Feb 11, 2007
6,232
2
0
SG
#4
I am talking from a hobbyist point of view.
Are we degrading of image capturing skills with over reliance on the safety net provided?

For Pro photog, they need that safety net.
But for hobbyist, part of the enjoyment and "kick" is the challenge in "capturing" better image. I am talking about the capturing portion, not the post processing.
Different folks derive different sorta kicks from photography itself.
What is considered trite for some could be almost the whole world for others.
If there are personal principles to stick to, can always disable raw on the digital camera, or switch back to film.

I shoot film and digital and I embrace both with much enjoyment . At the end of the day it is the final output that counts. And maybe the journey as well.

Ryan
 

d2xpeter

Deregistered
Dec 6, 2012
1,283
4
0
55
singapore
#5
Different folks derive different sorta kicks from photography itself.
What is considered trite for some could be almost the whole world for others.
If there are personal principles to stick to, can always disable raw on the digital camera, or switch back to film.

I shoot film and digital and I embrace both with much enjoyment . At the end of the day it is the final output that counts. And maybe the journey as well.

Ryan
Agree.
I shoot film too.
 

duffydufs

New Member
Apr 20, 2009
432
0
0
#6
we are on the digital age now. so just embrace it.......
I used film before when I was younger for fun and I really don't like the colors on it.
now, we can achieved the colors/tone that we want on our pictures taken from digital camera.
well, its my preference anyway.

and by the way, if you don't shoot, you will not have any raw files to post process right?
cheers...
 

Shizuma

Senior Member
Mar 19, 2012
2,557
25
0
#7
wise man tell me :
if hobbyist is shooting for enjoyment, do whatever it takes for individual hobbyist to enjoy.

i am too lazy to post process. so always jpg and minimal post
 

Agetan

Senior Member
Dec 31, 2004
4,669
15
38
www.tomato.sg
#8
I am talking from a hobbyist point of view.
Are we degrading of image capturing skills with over reliance on the safety net provided?

For Pro photog, they need that safety net.
But for hobbyist, part of the enjoyment and "kick" is the challenge in "capturing" better image. I am talking about the capturing portion, not the post processing.
I don't think shooting RAW is about the ability to make mistake. while jpg is generally sufficient, what you get from a correctly shot RAW is much higher level of details and information. Put it simple, Jpg is equal to RAW + Set of setting done by manufacturer. So you are on the mercy of the manufacturer on their preferences. RAW, you take total control on how your image looks like in JPG.

Of course, different usage, if you just want to take photo and never print them or print small size (up to A4), there isn't a need to shoot RAW if you shoot it right.

Just do what you please really... taking pictures is about pleasing yourself so don't get bog down with technicality. RAW or JPG, just different format.

Regards,

Hart
 

Last edited:

tomcat

Senior Member
Nov 7, 2003
5,515
11
0
63
Visit site
#9
'Raw' is to digital photography as 'negative' is to film photography.
Nobody prints a photo from a negative 'as is'. A lot of optimisations eg. like exposure level, colour correction, contrast correction, etc have to be carried out either automatically in a colour photo printer or manually by hand before a negative can be converted to a proper positive on paper. It is just that most people who shoot films don't need to do it themselves because they send the rolls of films they shot to developers for processing and printing. Professional printers might have to carry out a lot more processing through various developing and printing techniques to produce a print that is suitable for exhibition.
Shooting in just jpeg format in digital photography is therefore synonymous to shooting polaroids in film photography.
 

catchlights

Moderator
Staff member
Sep 27, 2004
21,903
46
48
Punggol, Singapore
www.foto-u.com
#10
I am talking from a hobbyist point of view.
Are we degrading of image capturing skills with over reliance on the safety net provided?

For Pro photog, they need that safety net.
But for hobbyist, part of the enjoyment and "kick" is the challenge in "capturing" better image. I am talking about the capturing portion, not the post processing.
it is not about safety net,
one of the main reason is the proof of the original creator.
 

catchlights

Moderator
Staff member
Sep 27, 2004
21,903
46
48
Punggol, Singapore
www.foto-u.com
#11
when I shoot time lapse, I realise only RAW is the best file format to work and deliver the best result.

and it is the same when I shoot panorama, I need 16bit tiff to do stitching
 

MechaEd

New Member
Jan 26, 2012
366
1
0
Ring of Fire
#12
No amount of RAW post processing will make a lousy picture look good though.

It's hard enough to get properly exposed, composed, and framed pictures as it is. This is even before managing to grab 'the decisive moment'. On top of these I have to contend with being slightly hampered by JPG? I'd rather have as many options and leeway as possible.
 

Last edited:
Mar 1, 2012
1,585
6
0
Singapore
www.facebook.com
#13
You do know that ooc jpegs are just processed raw, as the camera deem fit right? So your argument about safety net / reliance on post production is not really valid.

Photography is drawing with light. It doesn't matter how you do it or what tools you use. Photography is not just image acquisition.
 

Agetan

Senior Member
Dec 31, 2004
4,669
15
38
www.tomato.sg
#14
when I shoot time lapse, I realise only RAW is the best file format to work and deliver the best result.

and it is the same when I shoot panorama, I need 16bit tiff to do stitching
wah... I rarely do 16bit tiff wor...

8bit Jpg is generally good enough for most application.

Hart
 

nulbonklr

New Member
Dec 1, 2007
267
0
0
www.facebook.com
#16
From a hobbyist point of view.

My concern is that if we rely too much on RAW, we might kill the thrill during the capturing part, and shift all the fun portion to the post processing. And photography would become just post processing?
Though the post processing portion is important too, worried that there will come a day when hobbyist just use the automatic mode just to capture RAW and then just worry about the post processing. LOL
Hmmm, just thought everytime we shoot, irregardless whether RAW or jpg, we'll try to get the right exposure and colour balance as much as we can. Good thing about our current technology, by looking at the pics from the cam, we roughly know how much details or post processing we can do to spice up the pic using RAW. But using automatic mode there are limitations, especially if using flash, we may not able to get the effect that we want. But I think most important of all, is to explore and have fun doing what we love to do, which is taking pictures.
 

d2xpeter

Deregistered
Dec 6, 2012
1,283
4
0
55
singapore
#17
Put it simple, Jpg is equal to RAW + Set of setting done by manufacturer. So you are on the mercy of the manufacturer on their preferences. RAW, you take total control on how your image looks like in JPG.

Regards,

Hart
very much agree with you on this point, Sir.

Ya, think i hv found the answer. "Total control" is the better word. I got the same feeling when i did my b/w darkroom processing.
 

d2xpeter

Deregistered
Dec 6, 2012
1,283
4
0
55
singapore
#19
No amount of RAW post processing will make a lousy picture look good though.
well said. It is like first we need to compose a good piece of musical score before we could make a good performance.
 

d2xpeter

Deregistered
Dec 6, 2012
1,283
4
0
55
singapore
#20
thank you all.
I hv better understanding of RAW now.
will start to shoot in RAW and experiment with it.
 

Top Bottom