Comments on: Do You Make These Embarassing Post Production Mistakes?

By: dijea

dijea — Sat, 03 Apr 2010 13:57:57 +0000

Mike, I totally agree. There is a time and place for RAW & a time and place for JPG. Some people don't always see the big picture and get in a rut one option is always better. In a compositional form RAW is not always best either. I do many media projects that are for web only and no photo I take needs to be in RAW especially when the final product has a dpi of 72. Its a waste of space. That doesn't mean I don't take my best JPEG resolution and re-size, but RAW is a waste for that project.

By: Mike Panic

Mike Panic — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 14:20:26 +0000

Tim,

We can agree to disagree on JPG vs. RAW, especially for the vast majority of people out there who print less than 5% off all photos they take and do web only display. Both sides have valid points.

White balance was / is a problem with film but it's no where near as sensitive as digital sensors are today in regards to color temps.

By: Tim

Tim — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 12:13:39 +0000

Well, having an approach of "I can fix it later" is totally sloppy, of course.
That doesn't mean you should ever choose to shoot in JPEG in the first place, though.
If you're going to make any amendments at all (say, rotate+crop or similar) afterwards, then you might as well apply them to a RAW image as to anything else, and in the process, feed-back from the changes you've had to apply to time-of-shooting camera technique (that is a desirable learning-feedback loop).

White-balance is totally a problem with film. Every brand has its own tonality, its own assumption of how daylight should look; just witness the huge array of colour-correction filters you can acquire from warm-up to cool to daylight-to-tungsten etc.

By: Tim

Tim — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 12:06:26 +0000

I'm afraid that reads like a load of gibberish to me. None of those constitute reasons to present an inferior image to your viewers nor to reduce your scope to return and edit the image later. Arguably, in a mixed lighting setup, such as the club you mention, I would be running to check I have RAW *en*abled for safety when the camera's (auto)white-balance does something crazy.

Given that one's equipment allows both, the time and place for RAW is while you're shooting, and for JPEG, when you're publishing. I fail to see why the potential “mistake” works two ways.

By: Tim

Tim — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 12:06:26 +0000

Given that one's equipment allows both, the time and place for RAW is while you're shooting, and for JPEG, when you're publishing. I fail to see why the potential “mistake” works two ways.

By: Mike Panic

Mike Panic — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 10:52:24 +0000

Greg – this may be a good topic all by itself, but I've outlined a few ideas in an earlier response why JPG could be used, note I didn't say “should” be used.

To specifically address your last question, when I can, I use a light meter and a custom white balance. I'm a photographer first, post production “artist” second, and that's only because in the digital world, we have to be. I'm a firm believer in nailing your shot to the best of your ability and the ability of the gear you use. Being a sloppy shooter and saying “Oh no worry, I shot in RAW, I can fix that in post” only takes time away from shooting and the final product is rarely as good as what you could have done in camera. Film had a much greater latitude in regards to exposure, that is to say you could over or under expose a bit more and still have a pleasing image; white balance wasn't a problem and you bought film based on the grain and saturation levels you wanted. Digital photographers have control over that, but far tighter restraints for over / under exposure control and for whatever reason, digital noise never developed the cult-like following that quality grain from film achieved (thank goodness!).

By: Mike Panic

Mike Panic — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 10:46:33 +0000

Miguel – that's not the only way. What if your computer crashes or your external hard drive dies and you only have the RAW files or unedited JPGs on DVD somewhere? Or, you switch to Aperture and away from Lightroom and Photoshop, or worse, LR and PS change how they store the changes in the XMP directory?

I always keep Unedited JPG / RAW files, post production files and web files. I also like to go back and re-edit from time to time photos with new techniques, filters, actions or presets.

By: Mike Panic

Mike Panic — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 10:42:57 +0000

Tim, You don't want to shoot in RAW if you aren't on a color calibrated monitor for example. Also, if you aren't familiar with how the color wheel works or how to sharpen for print or web, shooting in RAW will only result in images that are less then desirable. I personally don't shoot in RAW for say, photos of stuff I'm putting on eBay or Craigslist either. Two more examples, I just shot an event at a club last weekend, not one of the photos I shot will ever be printed, they ONLY went to the web and due to the crazy lighting in the club, no specific white balance would have worked, custom or preset. I shot JPG to cut down on the post production time of pushing RAW files through Lightroom. Next example would be most of the recent studio work I'm doing. I use a light meter to nail my exposures and custom white balance, so anything I'm doing above and beyond that is for creative purposes. RAW vs. JPG is like Ford vs. Chevy or Mac vs. Windows, each has a time and place.

By: Greg

Greg — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 20:51:09 +0000

I like the idea for this article but it poses more questions than it answers. For example is RAW shooting really a post-production issue? Lightroom treats RAW files much the same as JPG so how is this a problem? And why would you not want to shoot RAW – to have less control of exposure and light balance?

By: Ryan

Ryan — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 11:59:42 +0000

I have to ask, when do you recommend to NOT shoot in RAW?