Experimental or Sacrilege?

[bocaburger]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The point I was trying to make is that major competitions nowadays often require the raw file to ensure they are honouring a photograph taken by the camera, not created in the computer.

 

Are you saying these competitions accept only unprocessed raw files for submission, or that they merely want the raw file as reference to ascertain how much alteration has been done to the final image file being submitted?

[jaapv]

The latter. They want the raw file for comparison to the end result, there have been a few scandals lately.

[hydet]

Jaap is exactly right, and after the World Press Photo Award controversy--not to mention all the disqualifications leading up to it--I predict that no journalism awards will be given in the future without RAW files. In fact, most editors are now requiring RAW files for submission or verification.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/05/arts/design/world-press-photo-revokes-prize.html

 

Also, I am pretty skeptical that a exhibition quality print of any decent size can be produced from most jpg files. Hell, it's hard to produce a quality 8x10 wedding pic from a jpg, much less a 20x30 exhibition print.

[david strachan]

Also, I am pretty skeptical that a exhibition quality print of any decent size can be produced from most jpg files. Hell, it's hard to produce a quality 8x10 wedding pic from a jpg, much less a 20x30 exhibition print.

 

 

Ho hum...another ridiculous exaggeration...

[Alberti]

I support the OP, and this is not a sacrilege at all;

 

On the M8 the JPG's were very good; though yes they rendered less on the screen: rather unsharp compare to the raw; and the color was presented as somewhat off (capture one pro 7), so I mostly when comparing on-screen took the post processed image.

But: the days I used only JPG (as when travelling without a backup device aka MBP), the resulting JPGs when printed, even large 30*45, were very very good. Specifically the rendering of the grain is what I liked. But: Post processing JPG for color temperature or exposure changes was impossible; they fell apart very fast.

 

With the M, things improved: the JPG now renders well on the screen, and in Lightroom there is even a useful margin of allowable color correction and exposure compensation. Only the direct B/W is a bit bland/grey to my taste. The JPG shows better true to life than ever before. But the files have become big, at 4-5k useful shots a year my computer fills up too fast (200-250GB/yr), so having all DNG on my HD is not possible like before.

Relying on the M240's JPG is not a risk; and I will reduce the risk further.

 

What I have set up now as a workflow:

 

• record in RAW + JPGfine;
  
• import that to the HD; on import with C1, also make a back-up to the NAS while importing of the uncompressed DNG files (and nicely each backup is coded in a folder with the moment of importing)
  
• on the HD, in a first selection throw away 20-30% (is unsharp or misaligned or bad perspective anyway), identify the files for need of improvement, and throw away the remaining RAWs (can only be done in C1; LR catalogue does not support showing both).
  
• When wanting changes later, fetch the RAW from back-up and do post processing in C1 or likely in Lightroom/NIK.
  

 

I find that in C1 file handling is more intuitive than in LR anyway; but LR often has better end result.

At 5k shots a year for an amateur like me, I don't like sitting behind my screen all the time , rather I'd be behind a viewfinder

 

 

The downside is a little bit more attention to exposure and color temperature when shooting.

[CheshireCat]

In fact, most editors are now requiring RAW files for submission or verification.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/05/arts/design/world-press-photo-revokes-prize.html

 

It is certainly more difficult but not impossible to create a RAW file with a postprocessed image that looks like SOOC.

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Even then, I guess that forensic examination would reveal traces. However, in a photographic competition, the Jury can only do so much.

[Don Morley]

Many people who shoot professionally, particularly journalists, don't have time to edit and transfer RAW files.

 

If you're happy with the results, I don't see what the problem is. Shooting JPEG is justifiable on many grounds:

 

You don't want to spend time processing RAW files. You like the look that a certain JPEG setting has. Or you simply want to limit yourself when you're out shooting.

 

I get that RAW files allow you to preserve options to process files in other ways, but I don't see what's wrong with choosing to not have those options. Photography involves making all sorts of choices: what film to use, what lens to use, what aperture and shutter speed settings, what framing, where to focus, tack sharp or motion blur, etc. This is simply another choice that one needs to make.

 

As a very experienced Pro I think this answer completely misses the point as what actually matters is how good whichever systems the straight out of camera jpegs are.

 

So for instance those out of my Leica M240's quite frankly are lousy and in my view useless other than for quick viewing, whereas those out of my Canon 5D Mk 111, and Fuji X-E2 are great and usually ready to use as shot.

 

So although I do shoot Raw (or DNG's) in the Leica's case as well, I rarely need to use the RAW images from either the Canon or Fuji but have to from my Leica's, and although I am not a Nikon user I would suspect the same would be true of Nikon jpeg's as well. Don Morley;)