[ChrisPlatt]

I'm primarily a film shooter. For color photography I prefer transparency film, including the constraints it imposes.
For digital photography my Fuji X100 was chosen as much for the excellent quality of its SOOC JPEGs as anything else.

Though I don't mind standing in the darkroom for hours trying to make a couple of good quality black and white wet prints
the idea of sitting at a computer for hours adding details that were never actually visible to the human eye simply bores me.

Chris

---

Last edited by ChrisPlatt; 03-31-2018 at 04:24 PM.

[panonski]

the idea of sitting at a computer for hours adding details that were never actually visible to the human eye simply bores me.

Chris

you nailed it

[BruceBanner]

... However, another good feature of our Pentax cameras is that we can review on the rear screen the last JPEG just captured, then choose to save its raw data as well, if we should feel the need for it.

But as always, to each his own.
Philip

I think I knew about his but forgot, so correct me if I am wrong but if you choose to shoot Jpg only, when the review screen appears after the shot, you get the option to save the file as RAW also? But it's only the last shot fired, so for example a series of continuous bursting shots, it would just be the last that can be 'RAWified'? lol.
If the review screen is set to 'Off' can the Jpg still be saved with a RAW file as well in this regard? Or do you have to have the review screen on for at least 1 sec etc?

Funny how we can see things as opposites...To me:

Fiddling with camera settings means fiddling while the subject is right in front of me for color-matching and exposure (and allowing for a reshoot as needed) and while I'm out in the field standing on moss in a forest or similar (I don't go where there are people). Each hour afield is another hour of life I gained.

Fiddling with PP on a computer is to me an indoor activity and every hour spent at a desk and computer is a lost hour of my life.

Rather waste my imaging time out in the field rather than wasting imaging time at home. However, I have unlimited time to be afield and most folks have nearly unlimited time at be home.

(note that the tiny camera LCD is just as inaccurate as the uncalibrated monitors and even, shudder, laptop screens that 99.99% of us use for home PP)

Thank heavens for differences in humanity because I couldn't live with other people close enough to hear me sneeze on the front porch and most sane modern folks couldn't live where I live with no cell service and crappy satellite internet. That changes our worldviews IMMENSELY and for the better. It takes all of us to make a civilization! I'll cheer for your awesome images when I see them published, please do the same for my JPEG's. Editors couldn't care less which method we choose to shoot!

I love how different peoples perceptions come through in threads like this. My vibe is that if I go to the hassle (notice this lazy ass says 'hassle' lol) of a 2hr bushwalk to take pics of waterfalls etc, then I owe the whole process 10-15mins at home post processing (with a quality dram in hand of course , to do my walk and photo snapping justice). I hardly feel 5-15mins of messing around with sliders in the comfort of my own home constitutes as time lost, but rather ensuring the time spent to get the pictures is maximised.

Where things differ is when you have 20 shots to edit, it's not 10-15min anymore but now hours :'(

I think perhaps what's not being talked about here is what is being shot (subject matter). After snapping pics at the heavy metal concert I was at a couple weeks back, I shudder to think I could have done it Jpg only, there was a lot of editing involved with those RAW files, and I can't help feel the nature of that event demands that the photographer use every advantage they have. The sliders were moving in some pretty drastic directions on some of those edits, I turned what initially looked like a dull shot into something really spectacular, I wonder if the Jpg version would have been so forgiving...

But there are lots of other shooting instances (even landscapes with clouds etc) where I feel if you have the time and are not rushed that getting the shot right in Jpg is totally plausible. Sometimes I find the Jpg previews of my RAW files are actually the very thing I try to emulate in PP!!

There are Jpg shooters that I know that shoot jpg because they simply have no idea really how to edit pictures properly. I get that, it's daunting to begin with, whether editing Jpg or RAW, if you don't have a clue about any of the sliders and features then you just feel as though you are well and truly out of your depth.

I understand very little in photography, but I quickly can store the information that if I do x, y or z then , a b or c will happen, and I get by with this minimal understanding. I akin it to exercise, you don't need to have a Sports Science degree to succeed in fitness or training, you just simply have to do the work. The difference is the Sport Scientists understands why things/adaptation is occurring, but the results themselves don't change.

[MrB1]

Yes Bruce, the raw data for the last image that was shot stays in the buffer until the camera is turned off (or turns itself off), so that is the raw file that can be saved in addition to the JPEG of that last image. If the review is set to Off, just press the review button to display the JPEG and then you can also save the raw.
Cheers.
Philip

[Ron Boggs]

BruceBanner is right about WHAT is being shot being overarchingly important. Based on my last Motorhead concert in Seattle a few years before Lemmy's demise, those heavy metal shows are tough to white balance as well as settle on a "correct" exposure. So much so that I didn't bother to try...just removed the earplugs and stood with my head in the Marshall stack stage left and soaked it in. Still enjoying the tinnitus years later! But I never even hazarded a guess to try to shoot useful images there. Indoor mixed lighting would be pretty hard to argue against as justifiable RAW PP or just serious PP RAW or JPEG.

[dtmateojr]

I still shoot raw depending on the situation. After years of shooting landscape I have become very picky with what and when to shoot. I have also learned to use traditional tools such as GND filters to control dynamic range. It's because of this that I have totally abandoned HDR and learned to embrace highlights and shadows. NOT EVERYTHING needs to have details. Too much details make a shot very confusing. It's not uncommon to see photos with intricate foreground patterns and majestic skies which leave the viewer wondering where to look.

I am guilty of this (see attached) and that's why I prefer cloudless skies when my forground is busy or majestic skies when my foreground is simple. Too much details break a shot and that's why I find it really really funny when somebody wanted to extract details from an overcast all-grey sky

If you think that shooting in jpeg is stupid because of it's inability to be tweaked then do not even attempt to shoot slide film. Slide film has a dynamic range of about 5 stops.

For most people, JPG is good enough if you really think about your shot and not about how you can fix your incompetence in front of a computer.

[panonski]

It's not uncommon to see photos with intricate foreground patterns and majestic skies which leave the viewer wondering where to look.

Too much details break a shot and that's why I find it really really funny when somebody wanted to extract details from an overcast all-grey sky

that's for sure, and this is the thing I joyfully tell to others, when I explain why small cameras with limitid DR are better for ART photography...

Many people buy theirself a wonderfull big DSLR camera - and then simply - ruin their photos in post process with adding contrast, destroying DR, or put some filters...

Ordinary, plain documentary photo, with great DR is simply boring most of the time....

----

Shot with small camera, and you have ARTistic look right away

---

Last edited by panonski; 04-01-2018 at 01:46 AM.

[savoche]

I find it interesting that people seem to get so defensive when discussing this topic. Why not just accept that there is no right or wrong - just like with most things related to photography. As long as you know why you choose one thing over another you're probably fine.

If somebody wants to "get it right in camera" and is dead sure they would never want or need to do major tweaking after the fact, then fine. A bit like shooting slide film.

If somebody wants to process the heck out of their images, that's fine, too. It's their images. They can do whatever they want with them.

I like to be somewhere in the middle. I prefer shooting raw simply because that gives me all options. Shooting raw does not force me to extract every detail from the shadows or the skies - but I can if I so choose. Often I will do the opposite, blow the whites on purpose or maybe convert to b&w (that's removing a heck of a lot of information!), or even to high-contrast b&w (obliterating most detail).

No need to get up in arms about it - do whatever works for you. We all have different styles and tastes.

[panonski]

I find it interesting that people seem to get so defensive when discussing this topic. Why not just accept that there is no right or wrong - just like with most things related to photography. As long as you know why you choose one thing over another you're probably fine.

If somebody wants to "get it right in camera" and is dead sure they would never want or need to do major tweaking after the fact, then fine. A bit like shooting slide film.

If somebody wants to process the heck out of their images, that's fine, too. It's their images. They can do whatever they want with them.

I like to be somewhere in the middle. I prefer shooting raw simply because that gives me all options. Shooting raw does not force me to extract every detail from the shadows or the skies - but I can if I so choose. Often I will do the opposite, blow the whites on purpose or maybe convert to b&w (that's removing a heck of a lot of information!), or even to high-contrast b&w (obliterating most detail).

No need to get up in arms about it - do whatever works for you. We all have different styles and tastes.

K3 has already fine DR, specially if you turn ON Shadow correction to highest level .... So, to me using RAW all the time is just ... - overrated ?

Sure, it's a personal need or taste , I'm just telling my feeling about it...

I will shoot RAW only if I need to have great DR, like in Real Estate, when shadows and highlights are often joined together in one pic


95 % of time - I would not need any RAW. I would rather shoot more JPEG on my SD card, with small corections of framing.... Imagine how much RAW files would I have then

---------- Post added 04-01-18 at 02:22 AM ----------

I also noticed that claims

"I'm shooting RAW", have some leaks to photographers who simply put that in small talk, just to prove, how "experienced" they are, showing to others their superiority - because every good photographer would, of course, shoot in RAW...

...
RAW Story - is kind of Story of past times - when most Digital Cameras suffered from lack of details in higher ISO, so shooting in RAW was necceceary -
--
When I hear today : "I'm shooting exclusively RAW",
--
and if that claim came from amateur photographer - with some new suberb camera - and who shoot kids, flowers, and some street - I must laugh

[dtmateojr]

I find it interesting that people seem to get so defensive when discussing this topic. Why not just accept that there is no right or wrong - just like with most things related to photography. As long as you know why you choose one thing over another you're probably fine.



If somebody wants to "get it right in camera" and is dead sure they would never want or need to do major tweaking after the fact, then fine. A bit like shooting slide film.



If somebody wants to process the heck out of their images, that's fine, too. It's their images. They can do whatever they want with them.



I like to be somewhere in the middle. I prefer shooting raw simply because that gives me all options. Shooting raw does not force me to extract every detail from the shadows or the skies - but I can if I so choose. Often I will do the opposite, blow the whites on purpose or maybe convert to b&w (that's removing a heck of a lot of information!), or even to high-contrast b&w (obliterating most detail).



No need to get up in arms about it - do whatever works for you. We all have different styles and tastes.

It's not about being defensive. It's more of stopping the spreading of BS. There's lots of BS going around in forums. Raw vs jpeg, prime vs zoom, ff vs crop. None of which actually make one a better photographer and worse, they alienate beginners.

[BigMackCam]

It's not about being defensive. It's more of stopping the spreading of BS. There's lots of BS going around in forums. Raw vs jpeg, prime vs zoom, ff vs crop. None of which actually make one a better photographer and worse, they alienate beginners.

I don't see anyone in this thread spreading inaccurate information or alienating beginners. But I agree that none of the discussions around RAW vs JPEG, prime vs zoom lenses, FF vs crop sensors etc. make us better photographers. Understanding the properties, potential benefits and potential weaknesses of them can be helpful in achieving certain things, though.

What can be frustrating, and potentially misleading for beginners, I think, is the way some photographers present personal opinions as "fact" on matters that are subjective to the individual, and judging others accordingly. On the RAW vs JPEG matter, we can state as fact that a certain amount of information is lost when shooting JPEG. What we can't state is whether that matters, as each photographer's requirements and preferences are different. All we can say is whether it matters to us, and why, without passing judgement on others' choices

I also noticed that claims

"I'm shooting RAW", have some leaks to photographers who simply put that in small talk, just to prove, how "experienced" they are, showing to others their superiority
...
When I hear today : "I'm shooting exclusively RAW",
--
and if that claim came from amateur photographer - with some new suberb camera - and who shoot kids, flowers, and some street - I must laugh

And that's the "passing judgement" thing I'm talking about. I don't see why you would laugh at someone else's choice. That, ironically, implies yours is a somehow superior point of view. There's room for all of us, and all our personal choices. Let's not judge each other

[Madaboutpix]

1. RAW was invented to give photographers maximum potentiality and control.
2. JPEG was invented to offer maximum convenience and speed.
3. Film was the leading medium of photographic capture for more than a century, and it still has arguable allure.
4. You can create art with all three of the above, and part of the beauty in modern photography lies in the fact that we get to choose as photographers which to use.
5. You can make a RAW image look every bit as "Instagrammy" or "iPhony" as a JPEG, if you choose to do so (there are even presets to help you with that), but you will be facing limits in trying to make, say, a JPEG indoor event shot look every bit as its counterpart processed from a RAW file.

How people can spend so much time and energy debating these simple yet irrefutable truths beats me.

[BruceBanner]

I still shoot raw depending on the situation. After years of shooting landscape I have become very picky with what and when to shoot. I have also learned to use traditional tools such as GND filters to control dynamic range. It's because of this that I have totally abandoned HDR and learned to embrace highlights and shadows. NOT EVERYTHING needs to have details. Too much details make a shot very confusing. It's not uncommon to see photos with intricate foreground patterns and majestic skies which leave the viewer wondering where to look.

I am guilty of this (see attached) and that's why I prefer cloudless skies when my forground is busy or majestic skies when my foreground is simple. Too much details break a shot and that's why I find it really really funny when somebody wanted to extract details from an overcast all-grey sky

If you think that shooting in jpeg is stupid because of it's inability to be tweaked then do not even attempt to shoot slide film. Slide film has a dynamic range of about 5 stops.

For most people, JPG is good enough if you really think about your shot and not about how you can fix your incompetence in front of a computer.

I kinda disagree with you here (artistically speaking), for example the photo you provided to my eyes is wonderful because there is so much to look at and take in (like a Rembrandt painting). I think it's a marvellous shot and I can take my time enjoying multiple facets of the shot, not just the tones and mood but what's going on in details in the foreground and towards the back.

And I think this may also trigger a new component to this argument is that somehow there is not just one way of interpretation of a shot taken but many. There doesn't exist one best way, just multitudes of different interpretations, and which version appeals to which person lies in the realm of 'art', that is the eye of the beholder and therefore opinion related and not quite fact.

Perhaps I have a mind that appreciates details, I like images where I can gaze for awhile soaking lots of different aspects in, yet still able to appreciate the broader point? Others perhaps have mindsets that find those things distracting and derail the point?

I find it interesting that people seem to get so defensive when discussing this topic. Why not just accept that there is no right or wrong - just like with most things related to photography. As long as you know why you choose one thing over another you're probably fine.

If somebody wants to "get it right in camera" and is dead sure they would never want or need to do major tweaking after the fact, then fine. A bit like shooting slide film.

If somebody wants to process the heck out of their images, that's fine, too. It's their images. They can do whatever they want with them.

I like to be somewhere in the middle. I prefer shooting raw simply because that gives me all options. Shooting raw does not force me to extract every detail from the shadows or the skies - but I can if I so choose. Often I will do the opposite, blow the whites on purpose or maybe convert to b&w (that's removing a heck of a lot of information!), or even to high-contrast b&w (obliterating most detail).

No need to get up in arms about it - do whatever works for you. We all have different styles and tastes.

Apologies for the thread derailing into a RAW vs Jpg, it wasn't intended to be as such, more of a case of 'is anyone out there shooting Jpg only, do you have a high standard of workflow, can it be done 'professionally'.

In all honesty D T Mateojr is the first one to say "yeh, here's some of my work" and actually (imo) definitely hold ground in that department (at least in the landscape spectrum). Unfortunately a lot of the jpgers I know out there are doing it because they are clueless to PPing and can't do it, if they could I think they would start down the RAW path as it has nothing to do with time constraints etc. My experience to date (sadly) is Jpg = n00b (no offence to anyone here, I'm not talking PF here or singling anyone out, I'm talking personal experience, family members etc), and RAW = competent (both in camera settings/knowledge and everything that comes after the shot, PP>Print etc).

Like I said DT is the first to break that mould for me (if his shots thus far are jpgers and not RAW). I'm not even overly fussed what equipment was used (iphone vs dslr).

[Schraubstock]

When I hear today : "I'm shooting exclusively RAW", -- and if that claim came from amateur photographer - with some new suberb camera - and who shoot kids, flowers, and some street - I must laugh

I interpret this as a bit of a Character flaw, why would you possibly feel the need to laugh. Is it because you like to exhibit your learned superior wisdom ? and by doing so wish to degrade people who do not agree with you ? Don't dismiss the possibility that the people you laugh at may just know a bit more about the subject matter than you give them credit for. Since you have no way of knowing this you aught to be a bit more careful. People who know their stuff are usually a bit more humble about it.

Also, an amateur photographer is not necessarily of a lower standing, as your comment suggest by talking down to them. In fact if I was an amateur photographer I would be offended.

Cheers

[beholder3]

The first thing that shows some intellectual user limitations is to assume "JPG shooting" generally equals "no postprocessing".

1. There is raw data shooting, which needs manual effort raw development postprocessing in PCs.
2. There is standard in camera raw development shooting ("JPG shooting") with users opting to add manual effort postprocessing in PCs.
3. There is standard in camera raw development shooting ("JPG shooting") with users opting to not touch the JPG.

I simply see it as:

1. Buy ingredients on the fresh market and cook my meal myself following my own recipe, which I adjust each time to my taste
2. Buy ingredients in the next door supermarket and let someone cook my meal following the most common recipe found on the internet. I add some spices sometimes and ask the cooking person to adjust it a little bit each time.
3. Buy ingredients in the next door supermarket and let someone cook my meal following the most common recipe found on the internet all the time.

No approach is "superior" by definition. There are drawbacks to each one. Some people prefer one, other people prefer another.