Four Compelling Reasons to Become a RAW Photographer (D175)

Have you ever wondered what makes a photographer turn to RAW format?

Why would a photographer, aspiring or professional, use the extra card and disc space, not to mention the extra time it takes to process?

Since the first digital camera I purchased, I’ve heard both sides of the camp: RAW versus JPEG. Both sides seemed to have valid arguments and strongly pushed their way of seeing things. It’s akin to the Nikon versus Canon debate. Since I didn’t see a huge difference one way or the other and since I like to keep things simple, I stuck with JPEG.

So when I sat down tonight to start reading Bryan Peterson’s Understanding Photography Field Guide, I came across one more strong and convincing opinion for becoming a raw photographer. This is just the introduction to his book, which is all about how to shoot great photographs with any camera. With over 38 years of photography under his belt, he’s definitely got the years of experience and dedication on his side.

He was convincing enough that I’m going to give it a shot. Starting tomorrow, I’m becoming a raw photographer. Yes, it’s more time consuming and I’ll need to get some larger cards. On the other hand, it may save me time in the long run with post processing and image quality.

Here are my reasons for becoming a raw photographer (based on Bryan’s book)…

JPEG files do not offer the color range of raw files
JPEG files don’t allow as much room to play with exposure in postprocessing
JPEG files lose quality through compression each time you open the file, make changes, and save again
JPEG files take a shortcut by averaging colors and contrast

Basically it boils down to this:

JPEG is prepared meatloaf; it has the basic ingredients and you simply go home, put it in the oven, and have a decent but uneventful meal. Raw, on the other hand, is raw meat that, with your chef’s hat in place, finds you in the kitchen with all the necessary ingredients and spices at your disposal.

So which are you? Meatloaf or raw meat? Tell me why.

Manual: Page 78—Hue Adjustment.
Images: Looked at images in the Understanding Photography Field Guide.

February 22, 2010

http://www.redacestudios.com/ Red

RAW all the way! There is so much more latitude and flexibility for creativity, not to mention it's non-destructive nature that lets you process the exact same photograph two completely different ways without loosing a thing! I started in jpg as well, but once you learn the true capabilities of RAW there's no going back. Been RAW for a few years now and my only complaint is that I have to process my “snapshots” of kids/trips/whatever and I don't make the time for that processing like I do for my clients, and I'm just too lazy to switch the camera back and forth, plus I'm afraid I'll forget to change it back for a client since I'm currently in the throes of “pregnant brain” ha!
http://shirleybehindthelens.blogspot.com/ shirley

RAW, for sure. Not only does it give you latitude to adjust exposure, but white balance adjustments, too. To me, that is the biggest advantage.
dijea

I love Bryan Peterson's Understanding Exposure. I should pick this up and read it. I'm a switch photographer depending on what I'm shooting I go back and forth. I probably should pick and stick to it.
Anonymous

My friend Sarah Henderson (sarahhendersonphotography.com) taught me all about the benefits of using RAW. I love to edit my pictures, and see how much more I can get out of picture I snapped. I am not a professional photographer, and I still encounter alot of instances, in which my photography skills leave much to be desired. In those instances, like Birthday parties, chasing my kids through the park, and lowlight situations in which my RAW photographs give me way too much grain, I prefer to use JPEG. JPEG is good for taking quick – I want the picture – without having to edit it – type of pictures. We all need those, and I don’t own a p&s. Shooting in RAW is so much fun, so versatile, so creative and so great that I hope everyone tries it at least once.
http://alisawhitley.com/blog Alisa Whitley

I have been shooting RAW since attending IMAGING USA in January. If I hadn't been shooting in RAW I wouldn't have gotten the shot of the moon on my blog. I bet I've shot 500 images of the full moon in jpg, but none had the detail the RAW file did. There was much more to work with! I still shoot in jpg at times, depending on what I'm doing, but I really like shooting RAW.
kvoth

Ever since I started getting more serious about photography and upgrading my camera body, I've been shooting in RAW. Actually I shoot RAW + JPEG, so if I don't want/need to make changes I have a photo ready to go. I know it takes more space, but so far with at least two 8 GB cards, I haven't run out of memory during a shoot. I like the added flexibility of RAW, range and non-destructive method of it.
burnettimaging

I used to be meatloaf, but for mostly the reasons you listed I changed to raw meat. I like the size of RAW meat, it allows for keeping a larger 'negative' in the end. Plus any work done on that raw meat doesn't dispose of the original meat. So once I edit the raw meat, it becomes tiff, not meatloaf. Tiff files tend to retain the information better, without the constant degradation each time I go back and open the file. Granted its a bit time consuming, and I don't go with raw meat for everything (I shoot alot of action sports and waiting for the card to catch up can cost a shot!), but when it comes to portraits, weddings, and projects… raw meat is the only way to go!
http://www.facebook.com/ricky.law Ricky Law

I shoot jpegs more than raws as they served me me fine for now, but occasionally I do shoot RAW. Just don't have the time and disk space to go RAW all the way, I'm afraid.
http://twitter.com/scottnickell Scott Nickell

Tasra, For many years I was a dedicated JPEG shooter.What convinced me to go from meatloaf to raw meat was another analogy… In the days of film, you had your film developed and the lab then printed the images from the negatives. If you liked the print, would you throw the negative away? The comparison made me re-evaluate my position. Additionally, newer workflows that include LR or Aperture allow you to quickly and easily export to a number of formats after you do the basic editing.
Chase

I thought all this time you were shooting RAW Tasra! Nice to hear your confessions girl!
http://gallow-photo-year.blogspot.com/ Steve Gallow

The only time that I use plain JPEG is when I'm taking sports photography, and I want a higher burst rate. I usually use RAW/JPEG mode where it generates both. Storage is cheap.
http://greg.mcmull.in Greg McMullin

I have been shooting RAW ever since I accidentaly switched to it on my camera. I usualy spend time tweaking my photos anyway and finding the amount of leeway I had with regards to exposure made me never want to go back!
http://idrewthis.tenpm.com.au/ Drew

I can't believe, (and seriously, I mean no disrespect to anyone) that any serious photographer these days would shoot in anything but raw.
I see jpg being to digital what the polaroid print was to film. It's already processed and you have no control over how the print looks, unless you seriously degrade the image quality. Some people say that raw is like having a digital negative but I think it's more than that: it's like having an undeveloped film that you can process over and over again as many different ways as you like before you decide to print (save as jpg).
Yeah, it takes longer to process and uses more disk space. But space is cheap and processing should be part of any digital photographer's skill set these days.
http://tasramar.com/2010/02/how-one-photographer-stumbled-into-project-365/ How One Photographer Literally Stumbled into Project 365 : tasra mar | transform — your images, your albums, your life ™

[...] wondering whether I post-process my images, I can confess to post-processing all my images – I shoot in raw plus large jpeg. I have a general rule not to spend more than about 5 minutes on each image [...]
http://alesandemily.com/ emily sokoloff

I have recently switched to RAW just to try it out after getting some files from my friend who shoots in RAW. I was impressed by the depth of the colors, which seemed richer to me. I like the versatility of RAW… I just don't like the size…
http://alesandemily.com/ emily sokoloff

I have recently switched to RAW just to try it out after getting some files from my friend who shoots in RAW. I was impressed by the depth of the colors, which seemed richer to me. I like the versatility of RAW… I just don't like the size…
http://tasramar.com/2010/03/lightroom-preset-photoshop-action-recipe-for-high-texture-photographs/ Lightroom Preset & Photoshop Action Recipe for High Texture Photographs | tasra mar | transform — your images, your albums, your life ™

[...] with a straight out of the camera image shot in RAW format with 50 mm lens, natural light, cloudy day in shade. You can see how dark it is, but I like the [...]
http://tasramar.com/2012/01/completely-raw-one-lens-one-location-one-girl/ Completely Raw: One Lens, One Location, One Girl | LIVE INSANELY GREAT

[...] that’s hard to imagine, but I’m taking a step out and posting this image completely raw… that means it’s straight out of camera (SOOC). No editing (other than the small [...]