The Pro-RAW, Anti-SOOC Shooter

[NorthernFocus]

...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.

Manfred, I can see that point of view from an instructor. I'm a firm believer in understanding the basics. At least that's an argument for the SOOC aspect but not if he demanded jpeg only. The on-line personality that I referred to previously had no such higher purpose to his position. Judging by his blogs etc. in his case is appears to be plain opinionated arrogance and an inability/unwillingness to consider that others may have different needs/points of view. The individual in question is SO opinionated and narrow minded that I don't even bother reading his equipment reviews any more.

[pnodrog]

My own breadth of knowledge, skill, and wisdom borders on omniscience

May you soon qualify to join many of us who's breadth of knowledge, skill, and wisdom exceeds omniscience. Of course we all endeavour to avoid being SO opinionated and narrow minded but we always fail.

Unfortunatly there are a few reasonably knowledgeable people that do get a bit carried away with the concept that their way is the only way.

[Manfred M]

Manfred, I can see that point of view from an instructor. I'm a firm believer in understanding the basics. At least that's an argument for the SOOC aspect but not if he demanded jpeg only. The on-line personality that I referred to previously had no such higher purpose to his position. Judging by his blogs etc. in his case is appears to be plain opinionated arrogance and an inability/unwillingness to consider that others may have different needs/points of view. The individual in question is SO opinionated and narrow minded that I don't even bother reading his equipment reviews any more.

There was a second part to his jpeg only, and that was that the class was quite a mixed bag from people who probably should have been there to some fairly competent and experienced shooters. It was a way of leveling the playing field a bit to get people to work to the same standard. Interestingly, another requirement of the course is that every assignment had to be handed in hard copy (8 x 10 or 8-1/2 x 11 prints).

I also got to know the #2 shooter for big clients and #1 shooter for smaller jobs, chief assistant, webmaster, etc of the best known portrait / wedding photographer in town. He always shoots jpeg +RAW. The rationale was quite interesting as what he does is sets up a slideshow of the shots take during and after the wedding. He does all this in about 1/2 hour or so after the main shoot and before the reception formally begins and has a TV set up for people to see the images. It's very much a go / no go operation that he runs through Lightroom and there is no PP whatsoever. He has found when he does this, he sells more images and the bride and groom often upgrade the package they have bought.

The slideshow goes onto the wedding CD with no other work and he does some initial PP in Lightroom for the website for the shots that he is offering as prints. Any of the smaller sizes generally get batch PP, but he does spend time in Photoshop for any 8 x 10 or larger prints that have been selected. An interesting workflow with a lot of SOOC jpegs making it into the package; some minor tweaks in LR for smaller prints (really mostly colour balance) and full Photoshop treatment for the larger ones. As he puts it, for at least $75 / print, he feels he needs to put about 10 minutes effort into each.

[Hero]

I shoot both raw and jpg, but I find myself hardly ever referring to raw. Usually only when messing up big time on exposure or whitebalance. For the rest of what I do to an image, it doesn't matter too much on what fileformat I use. As a matter of fact, I can do most on both file-types in Darktable, although retouching is often easier to do in gimp (yeah, I use linux)

[Colin Southern]

Unfortunatly there are a few reasonably knowledgeable people that do get a bit carried away with the concept that their way is the only way.

Reminds me of the old saying "those who think they know everything are REALLY starting to annoy those of use who actually do!"

If you think photography is bad, I can tell you that it isn't a patch on RC Helicopter forums (I think the pilots leave a lot more blood on the floor from their postings than they ever do from helicopter accidents).

[Manfred M]

Reminds me of the old saying "those who think they know everything are REALLY starting to annoy those of use who actually do!"

That thought brings back a chuckle - I remember trying to explain something to my daughter who was around 4 or 5 at the time when she held up her hand and said "stop telling me things; I know everything". (She's 25 now, so that was a long time ago). It's funny how these people that do know everything often seem to have the manners of a 4-year old.

Your comment on RC Helicopter forums is also reflected on scuba diving, travel and videography ones. There are "experts" everywhere and the world continues to be a scary place...

[wlou]

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.

I agree with you that we should use the word processing versus post processing. Why? Because the modern camera IS a computer that does process the light that enters "its dark room" (one should say theses words with a ghostly voice as it comes from the distant past). hehe.
Yep, I am the firm believer that we all carry a computer in our hands when we take pictures, be it a "point and shoot" or an all fancy and pricy top of the line full frame. In case no one has noticed, the information is stored on a microchip that we call a card? Computers whizz please correct me if I am wrong.
Even a 5 years old know that. Case in point, I was on an outing this week-end, and family passing by ask me questions on my photography. I agreed to show them quickly on the live view screen what info my camera was giving me and what I could change before I took the picture. The mother said: My, that look so complicated, I could never use one of Those! The 5 years old son just shook his head as they walked away and said: Mom, its just a computer...(big sigh)
And if we do not choose the settings that will be more advantageous for the picture we want to produce, we have a certain margin of error that we can correct by continuing to process manually after we transferred the info on a dedicated computer.Or we can relied on the camera to choose the settings in part or all of them.
An experienced photographer who knows his equipment has much better success to failure ratio than the newcomer with new equipment.
The photographer that has received former training in the art and science of photography has a better than average chance of producing "Magic" than someone who has received only training in the art of painting and no training on the intricacy of a particular camera for example.
Ansel Adams possessed a large darkroom and a team that he trained to help him "developed/process" his films. In his writing, he explain how he manipulated the raw data to produce a picture of the idea of what he say should look like! Then he printed it.

[NorthernFocus]

....Unfortunatly there are a few reasonably knowledgeable people that do get a bit carried away with the concept that their way is the only way.

What enabled man to rise to the top of the evolutionary chain is our brain and its ability for logical, reasoned thought. Unfortunately, we are saddled with ego which largely undoes that benefit. And we aren't likely to evolve past ego considering their seems to be a correlation of the strength of that trait and the number of children that people produce.

I'm educated, trained, and have made a career in a technical field. After studying math and the sciences one emerges from the halls of wisdom into a world that seems to make so much sense and follow so the laws of physics, thermodynamics, economics, etc. And indeed it does. Yet from a practical standpoint when determining how to build something, solve a problem, etc, there are typically an infinite number of ways to apply those laws to accomplish the task at hand. Unfortunately it is more the exception than the norm that people recognize, or more accurately rarely will a person's ego allow one to recognize that fact. Get a group of twelve scientists, doctors, or engineers together to solve the same problem and they will argue interminably that each of them has the one and only true solution to the problem. And of course all of their solutions are based on the same set of natural laws and mathematical equations. Reflecting on my own attitude in my youth, the only conclusion I can reach is that ego is so strong in man that it (perhaps subconciously) convinces most of us that indeed we possess the one and only true understanding of the world and therefore also possess the one and only true solution to the problem at hand.

Man's ego is the slayer of logic. And along those lines, there are two observations I've made over the course of my career/life that are related to this topic and which have served me well when dealing with people that I don't know.

1. Never confuse confidence and competence.

2. The level of knowledge/skill that a person has on any given subject is inversely proportional to how much they talk about it.

No.2 may apply to my ramblings on psychology in this post

[PhotomanJohn]

I try to stay out of these kinds of discussions but Dan's post has prompted me to put in my two cents. I believe these discussions about the virtues of RAW, JPG, ETTR, exposure modes, etc have value in describing the functions, pros and cons of each. The part I can't understand is the level that some become emotionally vested in one approach over the other. In the end, each is what it is - no more, no less. One is better for some things and the other is better for others. What is important is to understand each option and then chose the one that makes the most sense to you for a given situation. It doesn't matter that the next guy came up with a different decision. The most that should do is cause one to reconsider his decision and, if it stills seems the best, then stick to it. If not, move on to something else.

I guess that Dan is correct in that ego (which is synonymous with insecurity) is what prevents people from being able to look at the facts, make a decision and be comfortable with it no matter what anyone else thinks.

It won't hurt my feelings if the moderator deletes this post because it is really not photography related.

John

[Colin Southern]

What enabled man to rise to the top of the evolutionary chain is our brain and its ability for logical, reasoned thought. Unfortunately, we are saddled with ego which largely undoes that benefit. And we aren't likely to evolve past ego considering their seems to be a correlation of the strength of that trait and the number of children that people produce.

I'd also add that - even with egos aside - some people often just see things through completely different eyes.

The following illustrates what I'm meaning ...

[Manfred M]

I'd also add that - even with egos aside - some people often just see things through completely different eyes.

The following illustrates what I'm meaning ...

That image brings back memories.

I used to show that same image during functional requirements review sessions with my stakeholders as we were getting ready to start the high level design process. It got the message out very clearly.

[jcuknz]

I value the start of this thread with the examples as the first time I have come across such a demo which convinces me about what I already believed from reading that RAW can produce a better result. However I think the thread title is wrong as one doesn't have to be Pro-Raw to be Anti-SOOC as one can be pro-jpg anti SOOC. I won't go on becuase the subject has been debated so often ....too often ... YUK

[Dave Humphries]

~ The part I can't understand is the level that some become emotionally vested in one approach over the other. In the end, each is what it is - no more, no less. One is better for some things and the other is better for others. What is important is to understand each option and then chose the one that makes the most sense to you for a given situation. It doesn't matter that the next guy came up with a different decision. The most that should do is cause one to reconsider his decision and, if it stills seems the best, then stick to it. If not, move on to something else.

I certainly agree with you here John.

It won't hurt my feelings if the moderator deletes this post because it is really not photography related.

Well, I won't be


My views?

Certain types of photography lend themselves to being more successful as SOOC - e.g. product, weddings even, as Manfred mentioned.

However, things shot at a distance, where atmospherics and hostile lighting may take a predominant hand, will almost always mean that dedicated PP will win over SOOC and if you're going to do that, you'd better start with all the data (i.e. RAW, not jpg).

Plus of course, speed of turn around, or 'good enough', do factor in as well, as many have mentioned above.

Little or no ego; that's my problem

I mainly shoot RAW (usually distant wildlife), but do occasionally shoot jpg when that's better - and I'm always willing to learn.

When I give advice here, it will always be what I believe to be (my) best practice at the time of posting, but over time, as I learn more, that inevitably changes.
That said, there are certain 'fundamentals' that I may extol more firmly, because they are pretty irrefutable. - and I know I'm right

Cheers,

[jcuknz]

. - and I know I'm right

Cheers,

Yeah Right Dave

[pnodrog]

I certainly agree with you here John.



- and I know I'm right

Cheers,

Would I be right in saying that is the one thing we all have in common?

[NorthernFocus]

Would I be right in saying that is the one thing we all have in common?

I think you're on to something there. As long as we don't stop and think about it too long

[SteveF]

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...

Apologies, I did come across quite opinionated didn't I?

[GrahamS]

Reading this thread, it is obvious to me that there are many who do not grasp the difference between a RAW file and a Jpg file, and therefore do not understand the technical reasons why one may be used for certain subjects and not the other. A little knowledge can be dangerous.....

[GeorgeM]

Great thread!!!!