[Lowell Goudge]

I am reading more and more threads lately where the first response to any difficult lighting situation is shoot RAW and fix it later.

I know the advantages of raw, but have I missed something along the way, because my approach is to get the best possible settings at the time of the shot, all the time. When you shot film you had to. Now, to me, it seems the biggest reason for shooting RAW is not because it is technically superior, but simply that you don;t have to think, when shooting.

As I said, did I mis something here?

[Kameraten]

Get A) focusing B) exposure amount right regardless of what you shoot. With RAW, you can fix most of the other stuff later, most notably sharpening and WB.
Of course fixing the composition, lighting and other content issues is not easier in RAW than jpeg either.

[Manel Brand]

...is to get the best possible settings at the time of the shot, all the time.

Absolutely. But if you fail in that, a raw file can save your butt.

[Ash]

Absolutely. But if you fail in that, a raw file can save your butt.

The issue to me is what people are willing to accept moves from getting the settings, composition and lighting as best as possible for the shot to just getting the shot regardless. The premise of getting a great shot hasn't changed because of RAW - it's no panacea. It's an increased accommodation for shadow and highlight detail retention during basic manipulations, nothing more.

[wlachan]

As I said, did I mis something here?

Back then when people were shooting colour negatives, often the exposures were way off but the prints came out alright anyway because of latitude. Just that the labs took care of them so we consumers didn't pay much attention. Now we have to fix everything ourselves. Still, getting the exposure right is much preferred because PP would be so much easier afterward. In fact, I found colour negatives were more forgiving than digital RAW and took me some time to adjust.

[pentup]

... because my approach is to get the best possible settings at the time of the shot, all the time."

It must be I who's missing something, because I don't see how shooting RAW would prevent you from getting "the best possible settings at the time of the shot." Make any settings you want; they're still embedded in the RAW file, aren't they? Just because you can tweak them in post doesn't mean you have to. And why would you prefer a lossy format over a lossless one? Do you really only need an image at one size, for example? Someone in another thread put it well by saying that shooting only JPEGs is like keeping prints and tossing the negatives. I'm inclined to agree -- what am I missing?

Forgive me, but I think you're setting up a bit of a straw man; from what I've gathered in reading many discussions here, people tend to choose RAW and stick with it, or JPEG and stick with it -- I don't get the feeling that folks are frequently hitting the RAW button as an emergency "let me cope with the exposure later" escape hatch.

[Manel Brand]

-- what am I missing?

Disk space, which comes cheap this days.

[Rondec]

As others have said, shooting RAW gives you more latitude after the fact. Modern cameras are very good with things like white balance and if you have a gray card with you, you can do even better, but there are times when lighting is changing and mixed when you just won't be right on and there, RAW will help.

There are two other areas. One is that shooting RAW and doing your own noise reduction can end up saving detail (if using a program like Topaz) -- less smearing than in-camera techniques. The second thing is that RAW helps to preserve dynamic range. If you want to add fill light later or do some recovery, RAW is where it is at.

Of course, the best thing is to get photos right "in camera" whether or not you are shooting RAW, but there is no particular benefit to me to shooting jpegs. If the photo is perfect, conversion in photo shop is a snap, if it isn't then RAW can help me save a photo that might otherwise be lost.

[JohnBee]

Now, to me, it seems the biggest reason for shooting RAW is not because it is technically superior, but simply that you don;t have to think, when shooting.

But it is technically superior

I think the general consensus toward shooting raw most often comes up under butt saving terms, though I really don't think that's the whole picture either.
For me RAW has always been about getting all you can out of a sensor. IOW. tapping into and making use(whenever necessary) of the overhead data within the file. Not not to mention taking control of your image grain along the way(demosaic). Which may or many not sound like a big deal to some shooters, but if you're into getting the best your sensor can provide then you would most certainly work in RAW.

As for roughing it and recovering later, I guess that comes down to the person. However, I think in most cases, shooting in RAW will help cope with any shortcomings that one might encounter in the scene. And by scene, I guess it's equally important to recognize that we don't always have the luxury of picking-up shadows or subduing highlights as we'd like(candids, outside shooting etc). At which point RAW can be the true savior in such situations.

There are of course many more finer points to draw from RAW shooting, though these seem most often at the top of the pile for those looking into RAW format shooting. And though its not for everyone(that's true), for those who do shoot RAW, it usually ends-up being a one way trip.

I know I can't bare the thought of shooting JPG myself(ouch).

[jolepp]

A major attraction to RAW for myself has been low light-indoor-artifical light-no flash snaps, where getting to adjust the white balance after the fact and being able to control noise reduction and sharpening tends to make a difference, furthermore one that can be had only by dealing with the keepers on more or less individual basis.

It is reassuring that a shot where the parameters were somewhat off might be saved by PP. Also, in general I suppose there is some mental suffering in realizing the JPEG conversion throws away a great deal of the sensor data whereas RAW keeps it all, so that you can decide what do with it - such as hit delete :-) - at your convenience. Of course, getting everything just right originally gives the best results in terms of IQ and personal satisfaction, but when trying to snap lively kids doing their own thing, or say, birds from the backyard, the conditions - or my skill - do not always allow for this.

[TaoMaas]

As I said, did I mis something here?

Yes, you've missed the huge shift in attitude that moved the emphasis from pre-exposure to post-exposure. It's a shift that had its roots back in color film. It used to be that if we wanted the best color and sharpness, we had to shoot color slides. Color print film just couldn't touch it. Many magazines wouldn't even consider your work if all you had were color prints. The problem was, with slides, what you saw was what you got. For the longest time, there wasn't even an acceptable way to make prints from slides without making an internegative. However, as with most things, the marketplace determines the future and most consumers wanted to shoot prints. So manufacturers began improving their print film. And it got better...and better...and better, eventually equaling and/or overtaking slide films in quality. Now, nailing the exposure and color balance were no longer required for an acceptable quality output. With prints, you could fix it in post. Digital has just expanded what can be done after-the-fact. I kinda see RAW as a bit of a mixed blessing. It offers the best available quality, but it also offers the most forgiveness...and that can make people a bit lazy. If it's used as a 'cure all', it's a little like putting your camera on "auto", IMHO.


P.S. Even though I quoted you, Lowell, I realize that you didn't miss this shift. If you had, you wouldn't have started this thread in the first place, would you?

[SpecialK]

As I said, did I mis something here?

Really, Lowell, the question has recently been answered by many in several of the threads on the subject you (and I) have posted in.

Obviously you have the "get it right in the camera" mindset, which is all fine and noble. Others, however, may have different objectives, preferences, or tolerances.

Frankly, I fail to see how camera settings can be reliably and optimally adjusted for every shot ahead of time.

And yes, the technology has improved and it allows you to salvage or enhance a shot. It's up to you.

[grainbelt]

You missed one possible reason to shoot RAW, one which most certainly applies to me:

I SUCK. I blow exposures all the time. I forget what I have WB set to. I switch modes and don't realize I had different ISO settings. Pretty much a disaster behind a camera.

Why should I be relegated to my screwed-up JPG output when I have the opportunity to try to salvage it by changing settings in the RAW file? I'm trying to get better, trying to remember just WTF it is that I'm doing out there, but I don't always get it right.

[JeffJS]

Another one of These threads... Where's my Popcorn?

Get it right the first time if you can, fix it later if you don't or can't. Just like everything else we use, RAW conversion is a tool that is available to us, and a very useful one at that.

[Mike Cash]

If I can guarantee myself one less thing to potentially screw up by the simple act of selecting a RAW mode (I use DNG) instead of JPG, then I'm going to do it.

And when I recently had to go through over a thousand dance photos it sure was nice to be able to set them all to the same consistent white balance (3500K) effortlessly.