I FOLLOW some photography-related groups on Facebook, including several purportedly devoted to the equipment I own and shoot. To my mild disappointment, many of them are what I would describe as (sometimes thinly veiled) "fanboy" groups. Don't get me wrong. I do find useful information in most of them, about the ins and outs of a particular genre (I mostly shoot "full frame" Sony and M4-3 Olympus equipment), and tips and tricks about the brands and models I shoot. Notwithstanding that, there is way too much emphasis by "apologists" for particular systems (my mind goes to: "my father can beat your father playing dominoes"). Too much: "those 'X' users obviously haven't picked up one of our 'Y' cameras and cannot possibly appreciate the fact that the "Y" is far superior to "X" in every way," kinds of comments.
commentary sometimes bordering on the ridiculous and uninformed
ONE OF those sites recently gave rise to another age-old argument, which begat in my (ever so 😇) humble opinion, commentary sometimes bordering on the ridiculous and uninformed. That argument: should I shoot raw or jpeg? Long time readers here know that I am a perennial advocate of the raw file. In my prior, years-old, blog on why I think (thought?) you should shoot raw, I answered that question in the clear and outspoken affirmative. Is that still my answer? read on to see where I stand today. But first, let's put it in the context of the online argument I recently read. Here are some excerpts from the thread on the group feed:
OP (a new owner-shooter): "........ I was advised to start shooting only in jpeg (because the format is less forgiving) to learn all the basics ...."
1st commentator: ".... whoever told you so, the reason to shoot JPEG has nothing to do with the format being less forgiving, but rather to help you pre-configure your camera settings ahead of time so that the output is essentially what you wanted to create, and so that you can deliver final results with minimal effort—no need to spend additional time, money, and effort on raw photos."
2nd commentator: "jpeg is more forgiving, but much more difficult to edit"
3rd commentator: "My biggest regret in Digital photography was wasting lots of money on RAW processing software. Wasting masses of time learning how to get around so many arcane processes. Wasting time actually processing RAW images at all. I don't regret spending a max of 30 secs processing JPGs. I don't regret the cost of all that storage space either. I don't regret all the extra time I have to enjoy life and take photographs!"
Some "doozies" there. From a site that is avowed to help users of the brand (irrelevant which one it is), we learn: "Jpeg is less forgiving. Jpeg is more forgiving. Jpg is harder to edit than raw. Raw files require expensive additional software, storage, arcane processes and masses of time." Mostly hyperbolic and misleading commentary (in fairness, there were also some very good suggestions - but I was surprised at how many there were that I considered opinionated, but uninformed).
I HAVE written about the difference between jpg and raw files here before, but it bears a brief discussion for perspective. A "raw" file is the closest thing to true, unprocessed data recorded by the camera sensor. It is still not truly and completely unprocessed, however. For technical reasons well beyond my ability to either completely understand or explain, a "raw" file delivered by a digital camera is at least slightly processed, in order to put the recorded digital information into a useable "container" (for lack of a better description). My research suggests that raw files are based on a very rudimentary TIFF file. Each camera maker is reputed to have put some of its own proprietary data in that "container." As such, each camera produces proprietary "raw" files. "Raw," by the way, is not a three-letter abbreviation. It is a word. As in "raw" food. I cringe when I see people continously refer to "RAW" in all caps in their writing (though I suppose there is something to be said for "shouting it out" 😃). Third party software manufacturers eventually are given the information to "decode" those files in their own software. No matter. I only mention this for the sake of precision and clarity. Based on my own (arguably limited) sampling (I have worked with variations of Nikon's NEF raw files in a half-dozen of their cameras - remember each model's raw files are different - 5 different Sony ARW raw files, 3 different Olympus ORF raw files, and a couple Canon versions). I don't think there is that much difference in the raw files produced from different cameras, once you run them through a raw software converter. Raw files are not capable of being viewed on a computer or tablet or phone without being "processed" by some kind of raw processing software. The primary advantage of the format is its flexibility and depth of digital information recorded and stored in the file. Every other file format has been processed by the camera. Not even the built-in screen on the camera is capable of displaying the camera's native raw files. Those thumbnails are actually a jpeg rendering by the camera. I am, and have historically been, an advocate of recording raw files. Several follow up comments on the above string note that it "doesn't hurt to shoot in JPG + raw. Then you always have the raw files to work on later once you up your skills." A corollary to this is that you can always render a jpg copy from a raw image in post-processing.
The 180-degree opposite opinions that "jpegs are less forgiving" and "jpegs are more forgiving" are neither accurate nor particularly revealing of the true nature of the jpg file.
SOME YEARS back, I posted a blog about "Why you should shoot raw." Digital sensors, files and processing have all come light years forward from the time when I wrote that. The latitude and image quality produced by today's camera sensors is significantly better than say, my original Nikon D100 6mp camera. The Sony A7rv is, for example, 10x the megapixels but equally (or more) significant is that it is also a physically larger sensor, with each pixel being larger. At the same time, technology has substantially reduced noise and has allowed us to not only plumb the depths of the "dark side" of digital files, but control and record more of and cleaner renditions of the rest of the mid and highlight tones in an image - even with the jpg files rendered from most cameras. Digital files, including jpgs, are much higher quality these days, making the divide between a camera-generated jpg and a native "raw" file smaller. How much smaller may be a matter of personal taste. No matter where we are today, that divide is certain to become narrower over time (a good example is the newer jpgXL file that for some reason hasn't caught fire - yet).
GIVEN ALL this, why not just shoot jpgs? They are smaller. They are already rendered in a form that can be easily displayed on digital devices, and easily transferred from device to device and user to user (my cameras have the facility to send jpg images over wireless transmission networks - i.e., the internet). There are times when I am out in the field when it might be fun to post something on my social media (though there is that pesky "connection" issue). Most cameras' (especially smartphones, it seems to me) do a pretty nice job of producing snappy, colorful images, out of the box, so to speak.
THE 180-degree contradictory opinions that: "jpegs are less forgiving" and "jpegs are more forgiving" are neither accurate nor particularly revealing of the true nature of the jpg file. Yet both conclude that jpgs are more difficult to edit. I am not sure what to make of those arguments, so instead, I dismissed them both. 😏 For me, the term and concept: "forgiving," dates back to the days of film. We usually discussed it in terms of "exposure latitude." Some films (especially negative, or color-reversal films) had a fair amount of "exposure latitude" (forgiveness). That meant that if your in-camera exposure was off a bit, it still might come out fine in the final development. In other words, forgiving. Other films (particularly slide films) had essentially no latitude and any exposure mistakes were instantly and - for the most part, irreversably - highlighted in the developed image. Most of us never thought the above "forgiveness," was a reason not to get the exposure correct every time, in-camera. But it did mean that in certain conditions, you might be able to push the (exposure) envelope a bit. While digitally recorded files are a very different process and medium, the concepts of forgiveness and latitude translate. Most high-quality digital sensors today have a dynamic range (the darkest to lightest tones it can record) of around 6 to 6 1/2 stops. Once the file has been rendered to jpg, however, you will no longer have that latitude for working with the file. However, correct exposure in-camera at the time of making the image is still always the best practice (no matter what file format you decide to use). Once the file has been rendered to jpg, to my way of thinking, it isn't any "easier" or "harder" to work with. I suppose when he said: "more difficult to edit," the commentor really meant that it is difficult (or impossible) to make substantial changes to exposure, color, contrast, etc., including targeted changes within the image. If that is what he meant, I don't disagree.
. . . debunks . . . the comments about "wasting time" converting raw images [and] "arcane" processes.
LET ME posit a very good (compelling, in my view) continuing reason to record your images as raw files. The original poster above posted his comment along with the announcement that he was a brand-new user, with the manufacture's newest "flagship" camera body in hand. He wants to "up his photographic skills." Which leads me to wonder why someone who is making landscape, city scape, wildlife, and similar images would spend 4 figures on a camera just to produce nice jpg images? You can do that with your smart phone these days. Or certainly with a point and shoot, or a so-called "entry level" camera. One of the comments that was made to his post was by a participant who commented that she started out shooting only jpgs and as her experience and skills level improved, she wished she had recorded raw files on some of her earlier images. Her comment resonates with me. The thing is, raw files record and preserve the maximum digital information the camera's sensor is capable of. If you choose the jpg only setting, however, the on-board software renders a jpg file from the raw file and that is all that is preserved. So what? Originally designed for portability and ease of transfer digitally (particularly on the internet), the jpg file is compressed. When that is done, a significant amount of that previously recorded digital information is discarded. Once that is done, you cannot get it back. That's where the "cooking" analogy comes in. The raw file is as close to the raw ingredients as you can get. The jpg is more or less permanently "cooked." With the raw file, you have a lot to work with in post-processing, including up to 5 f-stops of exposure latitude, more pixel depth, and the ability to adjust color, among other things. While you can do some of that with a jpg, the ability to "work" the file is severely restricted.
THE COMMENT about "wasting money on raw processing software, wasting time on actual processing, and wasting money and space on storage" sounds an awful lot like justification for someone who really only wants a "point and shoot" experience, where the shots are made in camera and the output is completely display ready. That's fine. I know many photographers who take that view and it is a perfectly legitimate approach. Just own it: "I don't want to do that stuff; I just want to take pictures." That's different, however, from suggesting that it is wasting time or money to engage in more in-depth post processing. In my view, they often do not truly appreciate the depth and magnitude allowed by raw recording and processing - or just do not care (a sentiment that is certainly valid). Storage these days is cheap. Unless you are shooting high speed multiple exposures, or video, you generally do not need the fastest, most expensive memory cards. There are some very reasonable cost alternatives out there. Terrabyte for terrabyte, backup storage is not really that expensive these days. I find the "wasting money on storage" argument unpersuasive.
. . . leads me to wonder why someone who is making landscape, city scape, wildlife, and similar images would spend 4 figures on a camera just to produce nice jpg images?
PROCESSING IS something a bit different. If you just want that "point and shoot" experience, you don't really need sophisticated processing software. Nor (in my view) do you need to own your brand's "flagship" camera. If you are serious about "upping your game," on the other hand, you are going to need some kind of processing software and you are going to find yourself wanting it soon. It is also worth noting that nearly every major camera brand provides raw processing software of some kind free for those who have purchased their cameras. I have generally found these products less usable than some of the mainstream software that you pay for, but they will certainly get you started and will decode your raw files into jpg, tiff, png, or other file types that can be displayed on digital media. Most post-processing software programs are bundled with other features which, again if you are serious about the craft, you will want sooner or later. Things like file management, search and key-word features, cropping, sizing, color and contrast adjustments and management, sharpening, printing, and converting from one file type to another, are among just a few of them. There are programs which include raw processing software from around $50 for a "lifetime" license (that you load onto your own computer and own), to Adobe's premium Photoshop CC/Lightroom Classic subscription-based program which will set you back about $200 per year. The advantage of the subscription programs is their ability to push through and you to acquire new developments in real-time. The disadvantage (at least at first blush) is economic. Much of this will depend on your wants, needs, and photographic approach.
Terrabyte for terrabyte, backup storage is not really that expensive these days
IT IS also worth noting that before you can process an image in a software program, it must be converted from its raw state. Historically, that meant that if you were recording images as "raw," you would convert from raw (in raw conversion software), then bring the image into post-processing software, and do most of the changes on a file that would be saved as jpg, tiff, etc. As software has gotten better and better, my own experience is that "most" of my processing is now done within the raw converter software, and those changes and corrections are non-permanently saved to the file. I use Adobe products. ACR, the Adobe raw processing engine, is integrated into both Photoshop and Lightroom. Most of the other popular programs do the same. That debunks, in my view, the comments about "wasting time" converting raw images. It is really a seamless experience, with a lot of flexibility. Likewise, the user interface for most of these programs is (after a bit of a "learning curve") relatively easy and intuitive, generally incorporating sliders that work much like the later, post-processing interface, again debunking - in my view - the comment about "arcane" processes. The beauty of making the changes in the raw conversion program is that the changes are not permanent (i.e., they are non-destructive). You can go back any time later and re-work changes you have made to the file.
WOULD I still strongly advocate recording your images in raw format? My answer today is more equivocal; but only slightly so. Personally, it is still a no-brainer for me. I will continue recording raw files for the foreseeable future, until something compelling convinces me to change that approach. I think you should too. If you want jpegs out of the camera, use the JPEG+raw option if you can (I don't, but that is a function of my personal post-processing workflow). But keep raw files as an archive. I am betting there will come a day when you will wish you had. The digital world we live in today, nothing is "simple." There is a continuum of camera, lens, and processing equipment (software, scanners, printers) and we each fit somewhere on it. I am not for an instant, denigrating the photographers I describe in the "point and shoot," jpg -only category. You may well fit in that category. It will be based more on your "wants" (and resources) than on your "needs." Professionals who make a living from their craft may be the only ones who can truly think about this continuum in terms of their needs. I chose not to participate in the FB thread quoted above (for any number of reasons). If I were going to advise a new photographer, I would first ask them to think about what their personal goals are. I have a relative who asked for my thoughts about purchasing a camera. As we talked about her goals, it became more and more apparent to me that she should just continue using her smart phone. For what she wanted to accomplish, it was perfectly capable (perhaps in some instances better than a dedicated camera). If you want to go more in-depth, and make professional (or near-professional) quality images; if you want to make (or even sell) prints or digital images; if you want the ability to creatively work your images (including cropping, color adjustment, targeted sharpening, blurring, etc.) then you will fall on the scale more toward dedicated, higher-end camera, lenses, and more than likely: processing software. This blog is really directed more toward the latter photographer, and if you are in that category, I would personally urge you to record and preserve your images as raw files. I do not personally do so, having thought it through and concluded it doesn't serve my purposes, but there is certainly nothing wrong with recording both (using your camera's "raw+jpg" setting if you have one).
I will be recording raw files for the foreseeable future, until something compelling convinces me to change that approach. I think you should too
I'LL MAKE one other personal point. To the comment about having more time to "enjoy life and take photographs." I have heard that one before. I get it. To each his own. There are some who don't want anything to do with processing or processing software. There are also some of us who do. I have been using computers since the first DOS-based, truly "floppy" discs were the norm. I learned to program some DOS and BASIC, and when Windows came around, missed, and was nostalgic about losing some of the ability to get under the hood and do my own "mechanical" work. When the "digital darkroom" became a reality, it was a natural progression for me to embrace it. I had a slide scanner for my 100's of color transparency slides. I used Adobe Elements at first and as my own skills and desires to work with images progressed, I became a Photoshop user (at a time when Photoshop was the only choice we had). I have enjoyed the ride the entire trip so far! For me, working with my digital images in the post-processing phase gives me - in a very different way - as much enjoyment as going out and making the images does. I am pretty sure I am not alone. I think it is legitimate to consider just how much time and effort you wish to spend after the shooting sessions are done. I also think it's "o.k." to either enjoy that or to not want to do it. It is why we are so diverse a community! Whichever and whatever way you choose, if you are a hobbyist: make sure you are having fun! Oh, and don't forget to record your images as raw files. 😎
No comments:
Post a Comment