DISCUSS THE 6 LIES of Digial photography

[On the Huh]

The NoBS guys, Rob and James made this video (linky at bottom), which is a few years old now. But does it still apply? The main point they make is that the fundamentals of photography, i.e: white balance, exposure, composition and impact are all immune from technological changes.

LIE #1 Refers to: The Camera..it's not the size, it's what you do with it.

I agree! But, (and there's always a but) better cameras offer less limitations.

LIE #2 Refers to: Computers..MAC or PC. Doesen't matter..both can do the job.

I agree, you can buy a PC fairly cheaply from high st stores that can do the job. But, I must admit, even though my computer is fairly high spec. it's a bit slow when it comes to Raw files from a 5D2. I have no experience with Macs.

Lie #3 Refers to: jpeg vs Raw. Exposure and white balance should be fixed in camera, so shoot jpeg, no need for raw.,

I agree. But, if especially, I was shooting something prescious or professionally, I would shoot Raw....just in case

Lie #4 Refers to: Colour Correct, assumes that you have a problem! But there is no need for this if you get WB and exposure right in camera. Enhance colour in PS not correct.

Again I agree. But refer to my answer above.

Lie # 5.Refers to: Plug ins are not required, everything can be done in the latest version of Elements.

Probably, but plug-ins can save you time, Well that's my take on it.

Lie #6. Refers to: You need to be better than ever with the fundamentals of photography with the onslaught that ther are now loads of people out there taking pics.

I agree.

Video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UucEfgIzoo4

Anyone have their own views?

 

[Harvey_nikon]

Lie #3 Refers to: jpeg vs Raw. Exposure and white balance should be fixed in camera, so shoot jpeg, no need for raw.,

RAW is the Film equivilant of a negative, and the jpeg is the print.

You'd be daft to choose jpeg over RAW unless you were supremely confident or where working on something where jpeg was prefered.

 

[trencheel303]

or if you're just a casual shooter who can't be bothered with raw file processing...

I just wish my camera had picture styles.

 

[Flash In The Pan]

or if you're just a casual shooter who can't be bothered with raw file processing...

I just wish my camera had picture styles.

I get the feeling a lot of photographers, particularly new ones, are scared of raw...

 

[On the Huh]

RAW is the Film equivilant of a negative, and the jpeg is the print.

You'd be daft to choose jpeg over RAW unless you were supremely confident or where working on something where jpeg was prefered.

Well if one was supremely confidendent, then you agree there would be no need for Raw? I think this is their point. Learn to take an image, like in the film days, and when you are confident that you can get it right in-camera, than there is no need for Raw?

Kris py, sorry you haven't got picture styles with yiur camera. Sure you could work them out in PS or a plug-in. ;-)

 

[On the Huh]

I get the feeling a lot of photographers, particularly new ones, are scared of raw...

That may be true. However, are some old ones afraid of jpeg, just in case they get it wrong in-camera?

 

[chip]

Lie #3 Refers to: jpeg vs Raw. Exposure and white balance should be fixed in camera, so shoot jpeg, no need for raw.,

I agree. But, if especially, I was shooting something prescious or professionally, I would shoot Raw....just in case

I definitely disagree with this one. I often shoot with the blinkies flashing on the brides dress knowing that the information will be there on the RAW file. On a jpeg the detail would be gone.

I don't see the point in buying a high spec camera and shooting all my work in a format that doesn't utilise the camera's full potential. It's a bit like buying a medium format camera but always shooting with a 35mm back on it. Why would you?? :shrug:

Chris.

 

[On the Huh]

I definitely disagree with this one. I often shoot with the blinkies flashing on the brides dress knowing that the information will be there on the RAW file. On a jpeg the detail would be gone.

I don't see the point in buying a high spec camera and shooting all my work in a format that doesn't utilise the camera's full potential. It's a bit like buying a medium format camera but always shooting with a 35mm back on it. Why would you?? :shrug:

Chris.

Good point! One could argue then why not use Full Auto? Or Programme Mode? Sorry, that's being pedantic. I really agree that that's a good point!

It's good to see everyone's POV. Keep them comming.

 

[Flash In The Pan]

That may be true. However, are some old ones afraid of jpeg, just in case they get it wrong in-camera?

If you shoot jpeg then you are immediately surrendering part of the decision of how the finished image will be to the camera, as the jpeg format discards a huge amount of the data recorded by the camera and only saves what it deems "correct".

It just seems crazy to me :shrug:

 

[DemiLion]

I get the feeling a lot of photographers, particularly new ones, are scared of raw...

You can also reverse that and say that a lot of photographers are scared to use Jpeg because of it's finality.

I'd say that there's a learning curve that goes initially from shooting Jpeg, to shooting RAW and then if necessary back to Jpeg again.

Sports photographers and PJ's all tend/seem to shoot Jpeg due to submission requirements, and you have to have reasonably big cajones to take one time shots in that format.

For what it's worth btw, I'm still on RAW!

 

[david1701]

*******s the lot, sure macs vs pcs is for people that give a ****

 

[On the Huh]

If you shoot jpeg then you are immediately surrendering part of the decision of how the finished image will be to the camera, as the jpeg format discards a huge amount of the data recorded by the camera and only saves what it deems "correct".

It just seems crazy to me :shrug:

But the arguement here is, if it is shot correctly in-camera, then so what?

Well that is at least as I see the arguement presented from Rob or James.

Me personally, I agree with you, especially if it was for a pro I'm shooting for, or if it was something important to me. But is it cos I lack confidence in my ability? Probably, as I said in my OP, just in case I get it wrong, Raw may help.
But is this right? Shouldn't we be confident in getting a perfect Jpeg?

 

[Flash In The Pan]

But the arguement here is, if it is shot correctly in-camera, then so what?

I see where you're coming from, however, if for example there are 200 shades of blue in the "correct" image, as recorded by the camera the jpeg conversion software looks at the data and thinks "we can get away with 25 of those" and discards the rest.

Jpeg produces an image that is "near enough", raw allows you to reproduce the scene using all of the data the camera captured.

 

[david1701]

But the arguement here is, if it is shot correctly in-camera, then so what?

Well that is at least as I see the arguement presented from Rob or James.

Me personally, I agree with you, especially if it was for a pro I'm shooting for, or if it was something important to me. But is it cos I lack confidence in my ability? Probably, as I said in my OP, just in case I get it wrong, Raw may help.
But is this right? Shouldn't we be confident in getting a perfect Jpeg?

because I can do a better job in lightroom than the camera can of making a jpeg

 

[On the Huh]

I see where you're coming from, however, if for example there are 200 shades of blue in the "correct" image, as recorded by the camera the jpeg conversion software looks at the data and thinks "we can get away with 25 of those" and discards the rest.

Jpeg produces an image that is "near enough", raw allows you to reproduce the scene using all of the data the camera captured.

Fair enough Graham. This is all great debate. I am not qualified to agree or dis-agree with you, one of the reasons why I posted! I agree that RaW files hold so much more data. All I am saying(or should I say asking) is that you can take jpeg files in-camera that will match processed Raw files-to-jpeg if you are confident in what you are doing? More Risky, I agree, but possible dont't ya think?

 

[On the Huh]

because I can do a better job in lightroom than the camera can of making a jpeg

Fair Comment!

EDIT: I suppose I could say you are better in front of a monitor rather than behind a camera then!

Please don't take this seriously!!!! It's just the point I think that Rob & James are trying to get accross!
I'm not sure everyone is getting their way! Or am I the fall guy here! ;-(

 

[Flash In The Pan]

Fair enough Graham. This is all great debate. I am not qualified to agree or dis-agree with you, one of the reasons why I posted! I agree that RaW files hold so much more data. All I am saying(or should I say asking) is that you can take jpeg files in-camera that will match processed Raw files-to-jpeg if you are confident in what you are doing? More Risky, I agree, but possible dont't ya think?

Yup, great debate

Think of it this way - a raw file is akin to a negative, a jpeg to a polaroid....

 

[david1701]

Fair Comment!

EDIT: I suppose I could say you are better in front of a monitor rather than behind a camera then!

Please don't take this seriously!!!! It's just the point I think that Rob & James are trying to get accross!
I'm not sure everyone is getting their way! Or am I the fall guy here! ;-(

I don't know much about then but they're wrong as **** now

I just don't trust the camera for me to not be in control

 

[On the Huh]

Fair enough guys!
I'm not dis-agreeing with anyone so far! Just after your take on the No BS views really.


Thahks Graham and David. I get where you are comming from.

 

[MnM]

Shoot both

Aim to get it right in camera and still have the RAW to play with

Best of both worlds

 

[Dave Stone]

definitely disagree with this one. I often shoot with the blinkies flashing on the brides dress knowing that the information will be there on the RAW file.

When the highlight alert is flasing, is there any recoverable info there?

 

[swanseamale47]

Raw has more data anyway, it's not a case of getting it right in camera, a raw file is 12-14 bit, a jpeg is only 8 bit, I don't see the point in buying a top of the range camera and shooting with second best quality.

 

[grum]

I shoot RAW almost always and yes I am better in front of a computer than a camera.

If the end result is good then who cares though - purists are boring.

 

[Alastair]

Your camera is a tool. Use the features available, in the way you need to get the result you want. There's very little right or wrong as long as when the ink dries on the page you are happy with the result.

 

[LCPete]

I agree with you Nigel
There has been so many times when I've got home and looked at the shots and realised that the white balance was way off. Thats why Raw is a no brainer
Seems to mainly happen this time of year, esp if the subject is in a bit of shade.
I would really admire the skill of someone who could go out with me and get the shots with jpeg
Pete

 

[a1ex2001]

Your camera is a tool. Use the features available, in the way you need to get the result you want. There's very little right or wrong as long as when the ink dries on the page you are happy with the result.

Voice of reason! There are pro's and cons the both RAW and JPEG and some people will never agree or even take the the blinkers off long enough to consider the other side of the debate. Shame this thread has turned into yet another RAW V's JPEG argument.

Back to the OP I agree with most of what you've said

1) The camera doesn't matter argument is a tricky on as obviously even the greatest photographer in the world is going to struggle with a £70 compact in tricky conditions. However once you get into SLR's the type of camera maters less and less, a great photographer will still take amazing images with a 20D that I wouldn't get with a 5DMKII.

2) MAC V's PC who cares it's a bit like arguing over which brand of black paint to use in your darkroom, either will do the job fine anything ele is personal preferance.

3&4) Pretty much the same thing, I can see both sides of the argument and actually shoot in RAW+JPEG as 99% of the time I'm happy with the JPEG from the camera with maybe a couple of tweaks but it is nice to have the RAW just incase I want to go a bit further with a particular pic.

5) Who cares if you use a plugin! Yes you could do all the things it does using the base software install but really why would you want to if someone else has already setup a quick handy plugin that gets you where you want to be? PP is a tool not a competition!

6) Thats the case if you want to be a pro but if photography is a hobby measure yourself against your own standards not those of others!

 

[trencheel303]

I shoot JPEG and the only time I really b****r up is when I am using flash, I just can't master the bloody thing, even in ETTL mode.

I used to shoot raw but got bored with sitting in front of a computer PPing everything afterwards. i only shoot for pleasure.

 

[Danny_Two]

Quote error. Why can't you delete posts on this forum?

 

[grum]

I shoot JPEG and the only time I really b****r up is when I am using flash, I just can't master the bloody thing, even in ETTL mode.

I used to shoot raw but got bored with sitting in front of a computer PPing everything afterwards. i only shoot for pleasure.

I don't really get this - when I load the RAW files into LR, it applies a standard preset, if you don't want to tweak this then you don't have to.

 

[Jelster]

I used to shoot JPG, then JPG & Raw, and now I tend to shoot just Raw. Download everything into LightRoom, discard/delete the crud, keep the raw files of the keepers, and do a simple PP on the rest. Anything I want to do some serious work on goes into PS. Having the original file with all the information just seems like the right thing to do.

As for the camera, their statement is true to a point, but I get a better hit ratio of keepers since getting the 7D, so go figure...

I don't use any PS plugins, but would like the opportunity to do so.

I have both Mac & PC, but prefer doing the work on the Mac.

I would like to get my work 100% in camera, but using Raw, you generally need at least a sharpen in LR (JPGs are sharpened in camera)

Steve

 

[a1ex2001]

I don't really get this - when I load the RAW files into LR, it applies a standard preset, if you don't want to tweak this then you don't have to.

Which isn't all that different to applying a custom picture style in the camera which is what I generally do, I've tweaked the available settings so most of my pictures are fine for what I want/need straight from the camera. I do have all the RAW files just in case but will only generally use them if I want to print something off at a large size.

 

[trencheel303]

I don't really get this - when I load the RAW files into LR, it applies a standard preset, if you don't want to tweak this then you don't have to.

I don't use LightRoom. I don't want to have to use LightRoom. Why apply on the computer what i can do on the camera? Save time and effort.

 

[Arkady]

RAW vs JPEG: sure why not? I'll just throw away 1/3 of the available image quality before I even start editing.
As Grum says if you're in a rush, just use the camera-presets that LR or Bridge applies to the image. Then if you've got it right in-camera (as you should) there's minimal processing to be done, but you still have the largest, best-quality possible file to work with at a later date should you wish to do so.

MAC vs PC - personal choice nowadays - if you can afford MAC and can live with its eccentricities, buy one - you'll be very happy. Me? I prefer PC...

Camera? Depends on the job. I know cheaper, flimsier cameras wouldn't survive in my line of work.

 

[artyman]

It's such a simple matter to do a bulk convert of RAW's to JPEG, then still have the option to go back and play if required.

 

[desantnik]

LIE #1 Refers to: The Camera..it's not the size, it's what you do with it.

I agree! But, (and there's always a but) better cameras offer less limitations.

As I always say, there are technical elements that cannot be overcome with "ninja skillz". It does depend on your subjects as to whether or not this is an issue.

Lie #3 Refers to: jpeg vs Raw. Exposure and white balance should be fixed in camera, so shoot jpeg, no need for raw.,

I agree. But, if especially, I was shooting something prescious or professionally, I would shoot Raw....just in case

It really depends on the volume of images you are generating, how much time you have to process them and MAINLY whether or not a highly processed image is the objective of your work.

For me, RAW is a waste of time, effort and disk space. If I used it then likely as not I'd be working with presets (which is what my camera does anyway) and even if I turned something into an amazing shot, the 75dpi toilet paper its printed on (usually with reds and purples badly managed) would loose anything I had created anyway. "Good enough" and well composed is all I aim for.

Lie #4 Refers to: Colour Correct, assumes that you have a problem! But there is no need for this if you get WB and exposure right in camera. Enhance colour in PS not correct.

Again I agree. But refer to my answer above.

Having said all that above, I wouldn't go so far as to say nothing about my images is changed in PS, it most certainly is.

Lie #6. Refers to: You need to be better than ever with the fundamentals of photography with the onslaught that ther are now loads of people out there taking pics.

I agree.

I'd say that in photojournalism the main game winner is to be there. You cannot take the photo if you are not there. Finding the places that nobody else is there is the key. The resultant image quality is secondary to the scoop itself.

If you are talking about financial success, then the name of the game is the business side itself. This is more important than any photo-skillz and you should spend far more time on this aspect than you do on photography and dicking around with your raw files... if you want to earn a crust.

 

[Yog]

To me, the argument "get it right in camera and you wont need RAW" is a bogus one.

There are many scenes where the exposure range far exceeds what can be captured on an 8-bit jpg, so if you are only shooting in jpg you are only picking a very narrow band of available exposure values. Whereas when you shoot RAW, you can choose which exposure values are most important to you, instead of dropping out just the highlight values or just the dark tones, you might choose to keep the extremes of light and dark tones and squeeze the mid tones instead. Not something you can do outputting directly to jpg.

When I shot BW film I processed my own prints. When I dodged and/or burnt was I cheating ?

Saw an Ansel Adams documentory a while back, and the amount of post processing he did on his negatives was phenominal. If AA had a digital camera today, do you think he would shoot jpg only ?

 

[POAH]

Anyone have their own views?

I don't give a flying ****

 

[david1701]

When the highlight alert is flasing, is there any recoverable info there?

yes, the blinkies are often set a safety margin down

 

[Daryl]

Shoot both. For important jobs studio pack work RAW. But when most of our work is portrait now and shooting 16,000 images a from summer to Xmas it is not practical.

Raw can be a pain. Get exposure and lighting correct and no need for it in 80% of jobs.

Large fine jpeg is the most we use. too many images to upload and edit.

Shooting to jpeg is like shooting to Tranniy film. Correct exposure needed. not much room for error.

Same for weddings. Jpegs on apeture pri for candids and Raw/Jpeg fine for personal and group shots. soon waste space on cards shooting the lot on RAW. Rather be getting on with the job than weaiting for images to upload.....

Shoot what works for you.

 

[grum]

Which isn't all that different to applying a custom picture style in the camera which is what I generally do,

But if you shoot RAW then you still have the option to change all that should you need to at some point.

I don't use LightRoom. I don't want to have to use LightRoom. Why apply on the computer what i can do on the camera? Save time and effort.

I enjoy processing stuff on Lightroom - one of my favourite bits of the process tbh :shrug:

And there's plenty that you can do in LR that you can't really do in camera. I'm all for getting it as good as possible in camera, but why not be able to make it even better? As said, do what works for you - but dismissing the obvious potential advantages of RAW completely seems a little silly.

I would compare jpeg-RAW to a low bit rate MP3 vs a CD. The MP3 might be fine in many circumstances but sometimes you are going to want the proper CD.