Comments on: Why Shoot RAW

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 28 May 2009 13:59:06 +0000

Sorry: http://public.me.com/pedrobrochadolemos

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 28 May 2009 13:57:37 +0000

You can download the files here: http://idisk.mac.com/pedrobrochadolemos-Public/view=web

By: RB

RB — Thu, 28 May 2009 01:08:14 +0000

Pedro,

I will keep an eye out for them,

Ps. Congratulations on your new camera the 5d mkii is a fantastic machine.

By: Pedro

Pedro — Thu, 28 May 2009 01:01:43 +0000

Of course, RB.
First thing tomorow morning (0200 AM over here right now).
I don’t have the files at home, only at the office, and, for some weird reason, i’ m not abe to acess my desktop computer right now (i don’t keep media files at the server).

By: RB

RB — Thu, 28 May 2009 00:31:36 +0000

Pedro,

Any chance you could either publish a link to the images here or email me a link to both the CR2 and the JPG?

By: Pedro

Pedro — Thu, 28 May 2009 00:25:34 +0000

Hi, RB.
Would you help me please, over an issue about RAW vs JPEG.
I just got my dream machine (5d mak ii) an decide to start shooting RAW.
Well the result are real awesome.
But, when i convert the image to JEPG or TIFF to publish, there are a lot of sharpness and detail that go away.
Those not seems the same image.
Of course, JPEG is compressed but i don’t think that such a difference should be expected.
Do you have the same experience?
Is there something that i’ve missed?

By: RB

RB — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 13:35:43 +0000

Hey SBO,

Thanks for the kudos – wondering what photos you were talking about? I never have had any cloud shots published but I have had other stuff published.

By: SBO

SBO — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 17:01:02 +0000

Your photos are beautiful. Have you ever published any books?

By: RB

RB — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 05:40:54 +0000

Mike,

What I meant to say is I find it difficult to believe that any modern digital SLR can possibly be programmed to be as bad as Kodachrome from a color perspective. The digital noise on my D2H set at ISO 800 looks really similar to Kodachrome 200 from a grain standpoint. Kodachrome blows whites out so fast it isn’t even funny and overall looks a bit towards green on my light table.

I am not nostalgic a bit for transparency film in 35mm, I do have some amazing 4x5in E100S transparency images.

By: RB

RB — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 05:27:52 +0000

Mike,

Your friend is an anachronism – sorry to say it but it’s true. There is something to be said for creating within the limits of a medium when it is the medium. When it is not the medium simulating it seems so…. pretentious.

I guess you agree on the point though, or don’t you?

By: mjperini

mjperini — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 21:56:45 +0000

RB,
Modern cameras are doing an ever improving job of in camera JPG conversions, complete with programable “Looks”, which in many cases provide spectacular results.
Some notable photographers shoot only JPGs because of the wonderful frame to frame consistency of “look” right out of the camera. David Ziser (wedding) does, but interestingly he is quick enough to ride WB on a shot to shot basis.
I took a seminar with Jay Maisel. He is the king of Kodachrome, a very unforgiving film. I specifically asked him about his post processing. He doesn’t do any. His assistant sets up his D3′s to look like Kodachrome, and he shoots. Admittedly, he shoots mostly for himself now.

If JPG’s work for you and your workflow, that’s great, and a time saver to boot. But as you point out why not RAW + JPG. If you get paid to bring back photos, it’s the cheapest insurance I know of. If you don’t get paid, but care about getting the best possible shot,…..it’s the best insurance I know of.
Ansel Adams famously likened the negative to a musical score, and the print to the performance. He reinterpreted many of his negatives over time.
Why throw away future flexibility when you don’t have to.
I often find “sleepers” in my files as I go through them. I see things that I may not have completely seen through the viewfinder. It is a process that can be as creative as image acquisition.
The final reason to shoot RAW is that as RAW converters change and improve, older images can be reinterpreted, sometimes, for the better. The corollary to this is that Photographers get better, our seeing improves, our sensibilities evolve (take a look at your old attempts at editing, [mine are so bad I've invented an old ex-partner who was a color blind fool])
Shooting RAW is about nothing but preserving the photographer’s options. They don’t have to be used, but for me at least, it’s nice to know I have them.

By: RB

RB — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 06:52:34 +0000

holy crap, this email thing is getting the best of me.

I did ask permission – via email – to answer this question here.

NO.

I did not see the phallic nature of the image until you pointed it out. I think you are a bit too tightly wound and a bit too paranoid to boot. Try to relax a bit.

By: RB

RB — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 03:33:45 +0000

Ooops,

Forgot one last email question – the extreme darkness in the lower right of the frame that you can even see in the in camera JPG is not nature but due to my laziness at 6am-ish in not getting the out of focus door handle out of the way looking out my bedroom balcony. Yes that dark spot is me shooting through a door handle – as in it was in total shadow but also total out of focus as well. Heck I will open the door but it was windy and cold out on that balcony.

By: RB

RB — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 03:28:43 +0000

I had one reader write me to say that he/she liked the manipulated 8 bit image the best and how would I do that if I shot RAW.

I think he she was being sarcastic but that is pretty easy stuff – just convert it to an 8 bit image and do the same exact manipulations on it. Bingo – cracked histogram. How lovely.

To answer another email question – obliquely – yes all of the manipulations are extreme, that is the point and my personal choice is the one at the top of the post because it best represents the way my eyes saw what I shot in terms of the blue to magenta to warmer hue variations in the original scene.