RAW Vs JPEG

and yes this was shot RAW...

Recently my business partner and I have been wearing a T-shirt in the shop on occasion with the slogan "I Shoot RAW" proudly displayed on the front (this is courtesy of another interesting personality & talent I follow online, Jared Polin, who is more commonly known as "Fro Knows Photo"). It has been an entertaining experience gauging what sort of response we get from our customers, and other people in our shopping centre we meet whilst wearing these... needless to say, we have received many a strange look as well as some clever comments which generally have nothing to do with photography, but hey, as long as it brings a smile it's all good.

The RAW versus JPEG argument has to be one of the most widely discussed topics in photography these days, with countless opinions on what is best. Most, unfortunately are based on misinformation or just plain old ignorance, and surprisingly it's more often the professionals rather than the hobbyists that I have spoken to over the last few years that are the ones falling into the second category.

Here's my two cents:

This will mean more to those who have shot film...  I liken shooting RAW format images to using the best possible film for the job along with having it processed at the best lab available.

Does this mean it will make a great image out of a crappy one? No - the photographer is still the most important cog in the whole process by a long shot, but it does mean that you are allowing your camera to capture an image with the maximum quality it possibly can. The biggest difference, is that a JPEG captures 255 tone steps from absolute white through to absolute black, whereas a RAW file captures between approximately 4000 & 16000 tone steps depending on whether your camera can capture a 12 or 14 bit image. This is the reason why you are able to recover many an off exposure if required, as well as produce much better tone gradations - especially noticeable in big enlargements. Essentially, unless there is a damn good reason, why would you choose to capture sub-standard images on the gear you have invested a lot of dollars in?

I have been able to save many an image for the pro clients I process work for when they have shot RAW. Again, I am not advocating that you should shoot RAW to make up for bad or sloppy photography, but it definitely can get you out of a jam... and life can choose to throw tests at the best of us whenever it chooses.

As well as the significant tone range difference, there are a few other components of digital photography that can benefit from shooting RAW. In camera sharpening and white balance are two things that can be set on your digital camera. If you shot RAW, you have the ability to change both those things if required, in your post processing software. Ideally, you should have set those things correctly when taking the shot - that's what good photographers generally do - but white balance can be a doozy sometimes, and if you are on the run jumping from daylight to tungsten to fluro... well, you can see how it could be an enormous advantage to be able to fine tune later if needed. Again, this ability has allowed me to save a number of photographers who have say, accidentally shot the good part of a wedding that was outside (daylight) with a tungsten white balance - you would not know once I had finished with the images. The same scenario in JPEG - find a good lawyer.

Now to be fair, shooting JPEG sometimes has it's advantages over RAW. JPEG's, having a smaller file size. They take up less memory, and can be captured and written faster - enabling faster frame rates for sports etc. Often sports shooters will do this as getting "the" shot with super fast frame rates is more important than RAW tone range. A job may require quick, easy and instant view-ability - which JPEG will provide (in many cases photographers shooting under these circumstances will shoot a RAW+JPEG to give them the best of both worlds). Other than those two situations though, in my opinion RAW wins every time.

So if you haven't delved into shooting RAW because you didn't understand the why's or wherefores, or because you've been told it's only for Pro's, give it a try. Most current computers should allow you to view your RAW files in their native viewing applications, and software like Photoshop, Lightroom, Aperture and iPhoto to name a few, will allow you to get the most out of your camera and out of your images.

Reputations on the line

In my main line of work - running a photographic lab - I am often dealing with other photographers, but more and more these days, with the changing times, I am dealing with their clients too. These days it seems a lot of photographers are choosing to hand over a digital version only of the images they have shot for their client (there are many debates on this line of thinking too). When this happens, more often than not no form of print is included - not even a set of proof sheets. I'm not here to debate whether that is a smart way to do things but what I can say from my experiences over the years as a printer and a photographer, is that without something showing your client what sort of quality they should expect from the images you have made for them, they can potentially end up with anything - despite all your hard work.

What I mean by this is that many of them are being lured to the mass merchants to have their "professional" prints made - you know, the images you made with your professional gear, post processed on your high-end computer & software and expertly finessed all the way with your experience and passion...  These mass merchants are destroying the retail photographic printing industry whilst they play out their pricing war on 6x4 prints (and most of the other common photographic services). They are only interested in running a lab as a loss-leader to the merchandise they sell (TVs, BBQ's, underwear etc), and have absolutely no expertise, and generally place little to no care in their photographic services. Granted, that potentially on the right day, with the wind blowing from the right direction and all the planets being in alignment, it is possible to get a reasonable looking print from a good file from one of these guys. But the rest of the time what your client will receive from them is not what you would want your client seeing.

I know this because I have lost track of the number of people I have dealt with now, who after having taken the CD of images they purchased from their photographer down to one of the TV selling / photo printing stores, and then after having been sorely disappointed, have come into my store and asked for my opinion on what they should do... generally they are angry at the photographer for producing such awful looking images and want to know if I can fix them. In the vast majority of cases the images are fine, they have just been printed badly (what can you expect for  nine cents I guess). After I make new prints and explain to them what's going on (and repair the photographers damaged reputation) they are generally OK. I do know of cases where the client never learned the truth and assumed the photographer was to blame, and then did their best to not recommend that photographer... food for thought.

Personally, I don't like providing a client with only a digital version of my work. Where possible, even if that was all that was required for the job specs, I try to include something printed to go with the digital versions such as proof sheets. That way they see what I want them to see - they have an example of what  the images should look like. Should they choose to print them somewhere unreliable or to view them on something that isn't going to render them favourably such as an old dodgy computer screen, new dodgy computer screen, television etc. you have something to uphold your vision. They may even choose to make their own prints at home (read colour profiling minefields) .There is so much potential for your images to not look the way you intended them to, the more you can give your client to protect your reputation - and keep them satisfied and happy - the better.