RAW getting you down?

*FHPhotographer* · 11-04-2009, 04:12 PM

I'm not sure where to post this, but...

Is there anybody else out there who has reached a point with their digital photography that they have gotten caught up in the technology of processing the image and now spend more time "fixing" images than they do "taking" images?

I think the issue is using RAW and the infinite choices and permutations of every image. I now spend a few minutes taking a shot and then hours, and I do mean hours, trying to tease the "perfect" image out of that RAW data. And of course, perfection isn't there and the process is unending. With that comes the nagging sense that the post-technology is sucking the joy out of the process and getting between me and the sometimes frustrating but ultimately more exciting creative world of photography.

If you reached this point, how did you work through it? It seems perhaps to shoot in jpeg and trust to the vagaries of the camera and your settings? This isn't a burning issue, but I'd be interested in comments,

Brian

*Ash* · 11-04-2009, 04:23 PM

I got over that feeling quickly when I realise how much better my images look after *good* PP.
Now I shoot with PP in mind, and that in itself I feel has improved my images.

*Wheatfield* · 11-04-2009, 04:45 PM

I shoot with the idea of doing as little post processing as possible, but I still shoot raw.
Most post processing can be automated with actions.
I will spend a significant amount of time on portraits, but my landscape work is in and out pretty quickly.

flippedgazelle · 11-04-2009, 05:02 PM

Originally Posted by FHPhotographer

I'm not sure where to post this, but...

Is there anybody else out there who has reached a point with their digital photography that they have gotten caught up in the technology of processing the image and now spend more time "fixing" images than they do "taking" images?

I think the issue is using RAW and the infinite choices and permutations of every image. I now spend a few minutes taking a shot and then hours, and I do mean hours, trying to tease the "perfect" image out of that RAW data. And of course, perfection isn't there and the process is unending. With that comes the nagging sense that the post-technology is sucking the joy out of the process and getting between me and the sometimes frustrating but ultimately more exciting creative world of photography.

If you reached this point, how did you work through it? It seems perhaps to shoot in jpeg and trust to the vagaries of the camera and your settings? This isn't a burning issue, but I'd be interested in comments,
Brian

Well, since it usually takes only a fraction of a second to "take" the image, I always expect PPing to take longer!

I use ACR, and have the default settings adjusted to my taste, so there are a few occasions where I need to do almost no PPing. Sometimes I have a very specific reult in mind, sometimes I'm simply playing, and sometimes I'm OCDing.

figmental1978 · 11-04-2009, 05:51 PM

There's two stages to photography, taking the photo and developing it. Developing in a darkroom or in PP software is just the same to me, actually, I think PP is quicker giving me more time to take photos.

*blackcloudbrew* · 11-04-2009, 06:32 PM

Working with LightRoom has helped a lot with my PP work and as I've gotten better at it over this year this feeling of, 'what a hassel just to see my photos' has faded away. Every time I adjust a blown photo in LR or ACR and/or bring out the image that I thought I took, I'm happy with RAW processing. I do understand asking the question though. I've made my peace with it and moved on.

*bbluesman* · 11-04-2009, 06:36 PM

I used to kill myself in LR time and adjusting. I discovered that auto settings for white balance and tones work good. Then I do my PS thingie with them so less time better results. Learning is never in vain-always helps you at some point.

*dadipentak* · 11-04-2009, 06:40 PM

Yeah, it gets me down--but only because I'm such a hack.

**Marc Sabatella** · 11-04-2009, 06:47 PM

Whether I shoot RAW or not has nothing to do with how much PP I'd want to do. Either way, most images will be fine as is, some will want a batch WB and/or NR correction and that's all, some will want me to simply copy settings from another image I've custom tweaked. Only a handful of images from each shoot will actually need me to spend as long as 10 seconds on. you don't say what program you use for RAW processing, but if it's not one that allows you to process 100 shots in this way in under a couple of minutes, your problem is your software.

ll_coffee_lP · 11-04-2009, 07:26 PM

I'm with Ash on this one. If you asked me a year ago I would agree...PP was a pain in the ass because of the time it took and the seemingly unending options I had. Overwhelming to say the least.

Over the past year I began to find my way in photography (shooting skills, eye, etc.) and in PP (at the same time)...such that I don't view the image in the viewfinder as it looks when I take the pic - I view it how I'm going to PP it (similar to seeing an image in advance in black and white if you know what I mean). Once it's on the computer I hammer out what needs to get done (using created actions in LR and CS2) to get it done and move on.

c[_]

stevebrot · 11-04-2009, 07:52 PM

I am with Marc. Whether I shoot RAW has nothing to do with how much PP I might do. What it does offer is greater flexibility in the options available in PP.

Steve

lithos · 11-05-2009, 02:10 AM

I do tend to spend more time editing than shooting, especially when the shooting only takes 1/10 to 1/4000 of a second to do...

*Steve Beswick* · 11-05-2009, 04:02 AM

Darn it! Who put the save and delete buttons right next to each other?

As I was saying, I'm a bit old fashioned. I like grain in my photos, wether color or B&W. If there is some minor, non-distracting bit of lens flare I'll leave it alone. When I first went digital I shot nothing but raw. Now the only time I use raw is when I'm geting paid, and even then it's +jpeg. Any other time if I don't get the shot then it wan't meant to be.

Lowell Goudge · 11-05-2009, 05:04 AM

I shoot 99.9% of my shots using maximum resolution JPEG.

WHat I have learned to do is to step back and think just a little about what I am doing when I take the shot and then adjust the WB, contrast brightness etc as the seen requires.

I rarely PP my shots, except for crops, streightning perspective etc, and all of these can be done just as easily with JPEG.

I do, however have the camera set up to take JPRG plus RAW with the pressing of the RAW button, in the event I think I will never get another shot at something, and want a second chance at finer adjustment just in case.

the bottom line is that in many instances JPEG works just fine, as long as you take the time to learn how to set things up.

SOmeone, in a previous thread on post processing vs JPEG accused me of "pre-post processing"

In reality, all I do is no different than what someone would do when you shot film, where you may have changed film to account for the lighting.

- SHoot slides when cloudy,
- print when contrast was high,
- change ISO when it got dark
- daylight vs tungston ballanced for indoor vs outdoor,
- changed from kodachrome to ektachrome to be warmer or cooler respectively.....

*Eaglerapids* · 11-05-2009, 06:37 AM

The thing I never liked about film was the fact I had no control over the developing process, especially shooting color, I never had a darkroom. So now I'm in heaven with digital because I can post process. I love working on the photos in the computer.