the only time i step back and shoot JPEG (sorry to the JPEG shooters of the world) is for sports. Soccer, volleyball, racing events....
We all agree that RAW is the way to go in general. However, there is a wonderful photographer named Tamara Lackey who
Originally Posted by erno james
For me, the main point of shooting RAW is the ability to correct my own mistakes - exposure, white balance, etc. - without paying a bigger IQ penalty than necessary. If a photographer is good enough to get it right in-camera, reliably, then I would think shooting RAW would be much less important. Unfortunately, that's not me.
"Hello, Wal-Mart photo? Yeah, hi, this is Tamara Lackey. Yeah, that Tamara. Say listen, I've just done a photo shoot with the most perfect photos. That's because I know how to get it right the first time. Yeah, that's right. Hey, look, I've got this flash card. Just go ahead and download the pictures and print them, would you? They'll be ready today?? That would be perfect. Just like my photos. Thanks. Bye!"
Neuroanatomist, scoot over. Make room for me, since I can
LOL. Ok, but before there was RAW vs. JPG, there was FILM vs. ...well, ok, there was just film. Although some pros spent more time in the darkroom than behind the camera, most pros just sent the negatives off to the photo lab and let them do their thing. So 'getting it right in-camera' was pretty important, once upon a time.
LOL. Ok, but before there was RAW vs. JPG, there was FILM vs. ...well, ok, there was just film. Although some pros spent more time in the darkroom than behind the camera, most pros just sent the negatives off to the photo lab and let them do their thing. So 'getting it right in-camera' was pretty important, once upon a time.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>
Thought you'd like that bit of humor. Even Tamara would do some post processing, which then brings us back to the data in a JPG vs RAW. Most cameras do fine, but in the field, pros use additional lighting or shoot multiple images to make up for the camera's dynamic range (or, lack of it).
The best pros spent the time in the darkroom. Ansel Adams is a perfect example. He considered himself to be more technical in that regard.
As to "before there was film..." I'm sure you're not saying to go backwards in technology. I make plenty of mistakes with images, but it's a relief to me to have as much data to work with as I can, and JPG simply doesn't cut it, no matter how good someone claims to be at getting it "right" (whatever that means) in the camera.
"Vote for Tammy, and it will be perfect shooting all year long!"
Yes, but he shot in black and white. I can relate - I developed and printed the B/W images for my dissertation. But color processing and especially color printing is another matter entirely.
I definitely enjoyed the humor, though! []
LOL. Ok, but before there was RAW vs. JPG, there was FILM vs. ...well, ok, there was just film. Although some pros spent more time in the darkroom than behind the camera, most pros just sent the negatives off to the photo lab and let them do their thing. So 'getting it right in-camera' was pretty important, once upon a time.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>
It's still important even using RAW. You just have much more flexibility and can have more fun with your photos now than you could with film prints. With prints you pretty much stuck with what you got, even scanning and trying to edit doesn't do much for them.
I looked through Miss Tamara's photos. Well, the quality is not really there. Some may call it style, some may call it lacking... That is not to say that she takes bad photos - only I think they could be better technically. They certainly are not straight from the camera, though. They were manipulated. And it shows. On RAWs, chances are, manipulations wouldn't show to that extent.
Agreed. No argument there. It's best to try to get close to what you're shooting for. The histogram is my guide for getting close to what I want.
My satire with Ms Tammy was simply to show that no one, and I mean, NO ONE, takes a digital picture without some processing going on (if she shoots jpgs, her camera is 'cooking' them on the inside). Besides, even if no post processing was done, the moment the files were taken to a place like Wal-Mart, they'll cook those images further (as Sean pointed out to me a while back).
Like you said, the flexibility and fun is there with RAW.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote