The Pro-RAW, Anti-SOOC Shooter

[jprzybyla]

Dan and I think alike, I think of the camera as a data collector rather than producing SOOC images. Where Dan and I differ is on ETTR (exposing to the right), I am much more concerned with keeping the white highlights on birds from clipping. ETTR came about when digital photography was early on and the sensors were not as good as todays sensors. Noise then was a big problem and to overcome the noise ETTR was used.

I use software and a computer to bring life to the data that the camera has captured. Most of my images have one exposure for the background and one or more exposures for the bird. The white head of the eagle would be one exposure while the brown body would be another. I do that in Lightroom using the Adjustment Brush, frankly I do not know how to do it as Dan does in Photoshop using layers and masks. I cut my teeth with Lightroom and only use Photoshop Elements for my noise reduction plug-in and sometimes to clean up an image.

Different ways to get to the same results

As Dan wrote... I have only one shot to capture many images I need settings I can trust without much time for fiddling with exposures, dials and buttons.

It is the nature of nature/bird photography, capture the data, fix things later.

[NorthernFocus]

......Yes, further editing will improve the results of difficult shots but we should be striving to make that a minimum requirement rather than an expected norm.

Hey, Andrew. Thanks for joining in the discussion though I wish you would have read the OP more carefully. Specifically regarding the in camera editing that was done on the third image in the post.

Presumably in the above quote by "we" you are referring to the universal we. If not, ignore this post. But if in fact you do mean the universal we, I'm intrigued and hope you can expound further on why we should strive to do as suggested.

[DanK]

I'm in the same camp as Richard--once I tried raw, I never turned back.

Maybe I'm nitpicking, but I wonder if discussions of SOOC and raw vs. jpeg would go better if we dropped the word "postprocessing" and used "processing." All digital images are processed; what differs is only how you do it. There are three options:

1. Choose a processing algorithm in advance by selecting a picture style and shooting jpeg. This processing sets all the parameters as a unit and is done without seeing the image, but it is still processing.

2. Do the same as #1, but continue processing with software after the image is taken off the camera.

3. Shoot raw, which requires that all processing is done in software.

The main difference between 1 and 2 is that you give up the ability to vary individual parameters (sharpening, color balance, etc.) and give up processing in response to what the image looks like. The main difference between 2 and 3 is the loss of information and flexibility in the editing done in software. (Anyone who doubts that should go out on a sunny day, set the camera for tungsten, and try to clean up the mess afterward.)

There is no virtue or vice in any of this. All options entail processing; they differ only in the tools used to do the processing and the amount of control the photographer retains.

[NorthernFocus]

...Where Dan and I differ is on ETTR (exposing to the right), I am much more concerned with keeping the white highlights on birds from clipping....

And I'll bet if we lived and shot in the same latitudes we might agree on this too

[Brownbear]

Prior to joining C&C I've always been SOOC, but now I'm currently doing both... I started shooting raw and jpeg, simply because I read somewhere on here that one should shoot raw, and I can now see the value of raw photos, thank you to Cambridge for that.


I think it is good to be able to do both SOOC and processing raw and depends on your purpose, ie; jpegs for sports, contest requirements. Learning to process my photos is helping me to see what I need to work on.

However, for me learning that National Geographic photographers shoot raw means I will too, simply because I want enjoy all the same advantages they do...


http://intelligenttravel.nationalgeo...in-raw-format/

Dan, thank you for posting this. It is a very helpful learning tool to see how much one exposes to the right, for the purpose of raw files for birds in flight.

[SteveF]

My camera can 'process' an image sooc in 1/500th or less ready to use. Ready for the web, print, email, forward to an editor or tethered back to my editor for publication in less than 15 seconds.

Can you do this raw? Do you want to do this? It's all in what you want to achieve. I will not be piddling with these images in 2/3/5/10 yrs time in a new editor and I don't feel many will. That's not to say you should shoot jpeg because you won't be, that's just an example of how and when jpegs are superior to raw and justly so.

Our modern camera bodies are wonderful things but, they do need an understanding before the shutter button is pressed. A properly exposed jpeg sooc in the clients hands is a sale. A PP session with a raw file provided even minutes later is 'too late'. That's the commercial world in action. Time is money and money is in short supply and the first past the post collects.

This isn't to say that PP'ng a raw isn't worthwhile. Hell, keep at it. Just bear in mind that those of us shooting jpegs are probably out in the field right now and those shooting raw are still PP'ng their last batch or 2 or 3 ... etc.

Personally, I'd rather be bringing 500 images home with 300 keepers instantly than spending time (hours or minutes, you choose) in PP mode keeping me from going outside again. Yes I hate the computer but I love photography. I didn't sign up to be a darkroom chemist and my experience of 80% keepers has been earned by persisting with jpegs.

There is no clear winner and I don't know why folks keep bangin on about the differences.

Shoot jpegs and be a pro! Ha,ha... just jokin ...

[pnodrog]

You will never see an image from a JPEG file that could not be matched by the image from a RAW file. You will see an image from a RAW file that cannot be matched by the image from a JPEG file.

Opting for SOOC is totally valid if a critical time frame needs to be achieved or PP is not available. There is no other upside I am aware of but plenty of potential downsides.

What really bugs me most is that so called guru's promote SOOC to beginners and completely ignore the amazing amount of knowledge and learning that will gained by analysing the photographs during post processing. To be competent at SOOC they will have previously had to gain a good understanding of post processing adjustment options.

I see SOOC as a worthwhile objective but in most cases a pointless method.

[rpcrowe]

In answer to SteveF comments regarding the speed of JPEG processing vs. RAW as well as Christina's comments regarding JPEG for sports...

SteveF:

I would certainly shoot JPEG if I needed instantaneous transition of my images such as sending to an editor via an electronic medium. Especially in the case of fast breaking photojournalism-type coverages. However, I don't have that need. If I ever need to have my images ready for transmission, I will certainly remember your advice. However, with the exception of instantaneous electronic transmission of images, batch processing my RAW images is quite a speedy process.

Christina:

Sports photographers often shoot in JPEG because:

They need the images very quickly for publication (as do photojournalists at times) - often for electronic transmission to editors. Additionally, some sports photographers chose to shoot JPEG because their cameras could shoot a longer burst, than the camera could in the RAW mode. However, my Canon 7D (with the updated firmware) can shoot a burst of 25 images at 8 frames per second in RAW. I have never in shooting any sport needed to shoot a 25 image burst!

Finally: Many photographers have chosen to shoot JPEG instead of RAW in the past because of the smaller file sizes of JPEG images. Memory was quite expensive but, has drastically gone down in price. For me, the price of memory is not a problem...

[NorthernFocus]

OK, folks. Let's all take a breath. This thread wan't intended to start a debate over jpeg vs. RAW. Presumably I wasn't thoughtful enough with the title because I don't see how any balanced individual who actually took the time to read the OP could construe it as a debate/indictment of one vs. the other. The intent was to try to demonstrate the benefits of the additional data that is available in a RAW file and to share my own personal technique for shooting wildlife.

To be very clear, when I shoot dog agility events, I shoot jpeg. Not RAW+jpeg, simply jpeg. That is a high volume event and speed to market is important. A few blown exposures don't make or break the shoot. No one ever sees them but me and I likely have at least another dozen shots of that particular dog. No biggie. Maybe I lost a $10 sale. If the images aren't posted within 48 hours, I probably lose 90 percent of the sales for that event. There are competing photographers plus people just lose interest after a few days.

Shooting wildlife is a completely different dynamic. The only hope at all of having one's photos noticed is to produce something unique and as technically perfect as possible. Unless shooting on assignment, speed to market doesn't even factor into the equation.

When it comes to the RAW/jpeg debate, however, I do have an observation. It's been my experience that on average SOOC proponents are more emphatic in their assertions that theirs is the true and righteous way. The rest of us are apparently defilers (no pun intended) of true photographic imagery. It has also been my observation that most people don't/can't see beyond their own style/subject matter to understand how other photographers may shoot under different conditions, need different tools, etc.

...There is no clear winner and I don't know why folks keep bangin on about the differences....

And yet you thumped the drum rather soundly

In the immortal words of a modern day American philosopher "can't we all just get along?".

Sorry, Donald, I may have started this thread out balanced, "measured" I think you said, but I'm listing rather heavily to starboard at this point...

[Colin Southern]

OK, folks. Let's all take a breath. This thread wan't intended to start a debate over jpeg vs. RAW.

Ha - like that was never going to happen

We all know that JPEG is only better when shot on a Nikon - without a UV filter attached for protection - and processed on a Mac (they just work you know!).

[pnodrog]

There is no clear winner and I don't know why folks keep bangin on about the differences.

Of course there are clear winners it just depends if the competition is based on the best time or the best quality.
Different horses for different courses.

[Colin Southern]

Of course there are clear winners it just depends if the competition is based on the best time or the best quality.

I digress, but the sarcastic & cynical in me bemoans the fact that most "competitions" seem to be based on what's best for those running them (like the one I entered - oh - you need to pay an entry fee of $15 per photo - oh and they need to be framed (the competition was co-hosted by framers - what a co-incidence eh) - but we have some GREAT prizes - cough - which are either all donated by sponsors in exchange for the publicity, or "soft-dollar" prizes that aren't really worth a fraction of what they state (and in my case, turned out to be printing by my competition) (funny how my commercially successful landscapes didn't get so much as a mention, and yet 2nd place was awarded to a photo of a tree - taken across a field - at night - in the rain).

[The Blue Boy]

Dan,

As I said in the previous comment, this is an excellent thread mate,

I think most people will miss your original point if they take too much notice of the replies regarding the defense of shooting solely in a JPEG format.

Your original post was to educate people as to the benefit of shooting "raw" in a certain situation, and to point out the (the excellent, in my opinion) result.

As I said in my previous comment, most of us here understand the benefits and drawbacks of all sorts of our own camera presets and settings. We all understand our own commitments to whatever output requirements demand.

But as Dan said in the original post,

The intent of this post is in the context of the CIC aim of being a learning forum. The aim is to provide ONE point of view on digital photography. It's neither right nor wrong, it is just a demonstration of one path to the desired end result of quality imagery. Other people do things differently and produce as good or better results. The point is that each of us has to develop an understanding of digital photography and a process from field to end result that works for the specific individual and/or for a specific need.

That paragraph is so eloquent.

A learning forum.

Message ends.

[Suzan J]

Dan, thanks for posting your thoughts on RAW vs. SOOC processing. Like Christina, I started shooting both RAW + JPEG about a year ago, basically to hedge my bet. I do a little bit of PP work with Aperture 3. Without fully understanding all the physics behind the process, I have found that tinkering with a RAW image very often produces a superior result. I do have problems, however, with certain types of images. For example, shots of pets, or other animals, seem to work well for me. Flowers, on the other hand, give me a headache... The colour of the RAW image is so far from real life hues. The purples come out as a bright magenta and yellows are simply too garish to look at. I have tried manipulating the colour sliders, but I can never achieve the colour I want. For this reason, I tend to fall back on the JPEG image when it comes to flowers. I suppose that if I made a commitment to study colour management, I could improve somewhat and find the secret. This is definitely on my "to do" list.

[Manfred M]

The colour of the RAW image is so far from real life hues. The purples come out as a bright magenta and yellows are simply too garish to look at.

Suzan; it sounds like you have a sound strategy and are moving towards getting good images out of your RAW data.

One does have to understand a bit of the theory behind the processes to make sense of things. I have never used Aperture, so I don't know anything about it. The RAW files are simply the data that your camera has recorded and there is also some metatdata that can come across to give the PP software a head start on how to display the image.

Generally I find that the first adjustment that I do to the RAW file is to set the white balance; any of the RAW converters I use have a sampler tool that let one select a neutral colour (you can include one in a setup shot). Once the white balance has been set properly the tweaking of the colours is easy.

[DanK]

Flowers, on the other hand, give me a headache... The colour of the RAW image is so far from real life hues. The purples come out as a bright magenta and yellows are simply too garish to look at.

I haven't used aperture, but in general, this should not be happening. All raw processors have to impose some algorithms to render the image viewable. Some will take the camera's metadata to do this, as Manfred says. In effect, it is doing what your camera would do for the picture style you were using, except that in the case of a raw capture, that is just a starting point and is completely changeable. Other software makes you select a starting point. For example, I use Lightroom, and I can choose either Adobe Standard rendering or rendering that emulates the picture styles my camera (Canon) offers. I generally use Adobe Standard rather than Canon's standard as a starting point, but neither of them is far from correct. I never get what you describe, even though I do a LOT of flowers (check my website).

So, I have two suggestions. First, make sure you are setting white balance correctly. If you shoot raw, it does not matter how you set white balance on your camera; this may affect how the image initially renders, but it is trivial to reset it. When in doubt, I take one shot with a small neutral card (I use the smallest whiBal), making sure that the card is getting the same lighting as the flower, and then use the eyedropper tool to get a proper WB starting point. That may be enough to solve your problem. If not, check the documentation or google to find out how to set the initial rendering in Aperture.

After using Adobe Standard rendering and setting white balance correctly, I rarely have to do anything to the colors of flower images other than adjusting vibrance (similar to saturation). When I do have to do more, it is not because of problems such as the ones you describe. For example, it is common to have one color channel blow out unless you monitor all three when taking the picture, and when that happens, I have to pull back on the channel that is clipping. However, that is very different from what you describe.

[Cantab]

Dan,

As I said in the previous comment, this is an excellent thread mate,

I think most people will miss your original point if they take too much notice of the replies regarding the defense of shooting solely in a JPEG format.

Your original post was to educate people as to the benefit of shooting "raw" in a certain situation, and to point out the (the excellent, in my opinion) result.

As I said in my previous comment, most of us here understand the benefits and drawbacks of all sorts of our own camera presets and settings. We all understand our own commitments to whatever output requirements demand.

But as Dan said in the original post,

"The intent of this post is in the context of the CIC aim of being a learning forum. The aim is to provide ONE point of view on digital photography. It's neither right nor wrong, it is just a demonstration of one path to the desired end result of quality imagery. Other people do things differently and produce as good or better results. The point is that each of us has to develop an understanding of digital photography and a process from field to end result that works for the specific individual and/or for a specific need."


That paragraph is so eloquent.

A learning forum.

Message ends.

I agree.

[NorthernFocus]

...I have found that tinkering with a RAW image very often produces a superior result. I do have problems, however, with certain types of images.... The colour of the RAW image is so far from real life hues....

Thanks for the comments folks.

Suzan, one thing is a certainty, a jpeg that comes out of your camera is created from the RAW file so it is possible to recreate in post given appropriate software/skill. But if you are pleased with the results you're getting with jpeg there's no need to beat your head on a wall. For my own needs the real advantage of RAW is the ability to bring out detail in highlights and shadows. RAW files cover greater dynamic range than other formats which retains the desired detail. In theory RAW also contains more color data than other formats but frankly my eye isn't critical enough to fuss over subtleties of colors. The reason that several people have been encouraging Christina towards RAW is due to her interest in shooting wildlife where the shadows/highlights are frequently a challenge (per her recent posts).

Due to the dynamic range ability of RAW it also lends itself to landscapes. Not exactly my area of strength so I can use all the help I can get in that arena too. It is even possible to vary the exposure setting on a RAW file, save multiple copies in tiff or jpeg and then blend them back together. Essentially creating an HDR image without taking multiple frames.

To the forum at large,
The futility of trying to keep this thread from degenerating into philosophical debate started me contemplating on the whole subject of taking/giving advice from/to others. I related my own experience from reading blog posts of a well know internet photographer and foolishly following his adamant argument that jpeg and SOOC was THE ONLY way to shoot. In retrospect, I placed my faith in that person simply because he had a similar background of non-photography related knowledge as myself and shot the same gear that I do. In other words I made a personal rather than a logical decision. What I ignored was the fact that individual was essentially a free lance media photographer and from a photography standpoint had absolutely nothing in common with my style of shooting.

So, in the context of photography, it is wise to place a little more weight on the advice of those who shoot the subject matter that one is interested in and whose work one has actually seen and respects.

The previous statement doesn't apply to myself of course. My own breadth of knowledge, skill, and wisdom borders on omniscience

[Manfred M]

I related my own experience from reading blog posts of a well know internet photographer and foolishly following his adamant argument that jpeg and SOOC was THE ONLY way to shoot.

Dan - I ran into something quite parallel to this a few years ago when I was taking a course on photographic lighting course at the local community college. We got exactly the same instructions from the instructor, who is well known local photographer who specializes in product photography (primarily catalog work with some trade magazine work as well).

When I questioned him regarding this requirement, his answer actually made sense. He had been running into too many people that were sloppy in their setup and exposures and would want to go back and fix things in post. He had a real problem with this attitude; hence he forced the class to get things right SOOC.

[DanK]

I related my own experience from reading blog posts of a well know internet photographer and foolishly following his adamant argument that jpeg and SOOC was THE ONLY way to shoot.

I think the larger moral of the story is not to pay too much attention to anyone who tells you that there is only one way to do things. I tell my students who ask for rules of thumb for applying statistical methods: distrust them all, and think it through for yourself, given the specific context. The key, I think, is coming to understand what SOOC and raw really are and what tradeoffs they entail. That's why I suggested earlier that rather than thinking of SOOC as unprocessed, which it is not, it's more helpful to think of how the processing is being done in each case. Then do whatever works for you.